commercial and contractual constituencies meddling in structure of noncommercial group is unacceptable
Don't think I can post to the GNSO Council list, so will an NCUC Councilor please pass along this message. Thank you! Robin ---- Dear GNSO Councilors: It is completely unacceptable for the structure of the new NCSG to be defined and shaped by commercial users and contracting parties. Noncommercial stakeholders can and will define their own structure suitable to themselves and not be manipulated by other stakeholder groups who might seek to undermine its effectiveness. It is naïve and disingenuous to pretend that the different SGs don't have competing and often conflicting interests. We note that no one has invited NCUC or ALAC to participate in defining a new structure for the Commercial SG, or the Registrar and Registry SGs. This kind of discrimination among SGs will discourage additional noncommercial entities from participating in ICANN's GNSO. Please note that NCUC has already proposed a structure for the NCSG that has the overwhelming support of the noncommercial stakeholders currently active in ICANN. We have conveyed it to At Large, discussed its principles in public meetings in Cairo, and are in conversations with staff about it now. While we welcome efforts to amend it from new constituency proponents and relevant members of At Large, that proposal will serve as the basis for any NCSG proposals that go to the Board. We have no objection in principle to working with At large members and RALOs in this process, and as noted before we have already tried to include them in our ongoing process. But we also note that individual or organizational At Large members may also be commercial users and thus ineligible to join a future noncommercial SG, and thus have no legitimate role to play in the definition of our structure. The Board Governance Committee has made it clear on numerous occasions that Stakeholder Groups themselves should play a leading role in defining their structure. Explicit statements to that effect have been made by Roberto Gaetano, former Board members and BGC member Susan Crawford, and Harald Alvestrand. This is, quite obviously, the right approach. Best, Robin Gross Chair of Non-Commercial Users Constituency IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@ipjustice.org
Robin, Please see my responses below. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 4:58 PM To: Council GNSO Cc: NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: [council] commercial and contractual constituencies meddling in structure of noncommercial group is unacceptable Don't think I can post to the GNSO Council list, so will an NCUC Councilor please pass along this message. Thank you! Robin ---- Dear GNSO Councilors: It is completely unacceptable for the structure of the new NCSG to be defined and shaped by commercial users and contracting parties. Noncommercial stakeholders can and will define their own structure suitable to themselves and not be manipulated by other stakeholder groups who might seek to undermine its effectiveness. It is naïve and disingenuous to pretend that the different SGs don't have competing and often conflicting interests. [Gomes, Chuck] What gives you the impression that the NCSG will be defined by commercial users and contracting parties? We note that no one has invited NCUC or ALAC to participate in defining a new structure for the Commercial SG, or the Registrar and Registry SGs. This kind of discrimination among SGs will discourage additional noncommercial entities from participating in ICANN's GNSO. [Gomes, Chuck] What discrimination? Please note that NCUC has already proposed a structure for the NCSG that has the overwhelming support of the noncommercial stakeholders currently active in ICANN. We have conveyed it to At Large, discussed its principles in public meetings in Cairo, and are in conversations with staff about it now. While we welcome efforts to amend it from new constituency proponents and relevant members of At Large, that proposal will serve as the basis for any NCSG proposals that go to the Board. We have no objection in principle to working with At large members and RALOs in this process, and as noted before we have already tried to include them in our ongoing process. But we also note that individual or organizational At Large members may also be commercial users and thus ineligible to join a future noncommercial SG, and thus have no legitimate role to play in the definition of our structure. The Board Governance Committee has made it clear on numerous occasions that Stakeholder Groups themselves should play a leading role in defining their structure. Explicit statements to that effect have been made by Roberto Gaetano, former Board members and BGC member Susan Crawford, and Harald Alvestrand. This is, quite obviously, the right approach. [Gomes, Chuck] Agreed. I am just not clear on why you think it would be different than this. My understanding is that each Constituency Renewal request and Stakeholder Group Charter will be developed by the applicable constituencies and Stakeholder Group members and submitted to the Board for Board approval, not to the GNSO for GNSO approval. And the Board will judge each renewal request and SG Charter against the recommendations that they approved for GNSO improvement. Best, Robin Gross Chair of Non-Commercial Users Constituency IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@ipjustice.org
Thanks, Chuck, for your very reasonable response to our concerns on this matter. Your stated position – that Stakeholder Groups themselves should play a leading role in defining their structure – is the same as ours. You ask, “What gives [us] the impression that the NCSG will be defined by commercial users and contracting parties?” The answer, unfortunately, is the Board resolution of Dec. 12 (and below) and Avri’s proposed response to it. This calls for the NCSG to be defined by the entire GNSO and ALAC – indeed, it does not even mention existing members of NCUC as participants in the process. We are convinced that this is some kind of a mistake by the Board and that it did not really know what it was doing when it passed that resolution. And we have some private communications with Board members that confirm that – it was introduced by staff at the end of a long meeting concerned with gTLDs and was not discussed or debated. However, the resolution is there and concerns us. If you can join us in deferring the formation of this group and resdponding to the Board with some questions about the appropriateness of that resolution we would greatly appreciate it. Thank you, Robin 8. Role of Individual Users in GNSO – Briefing and Action Approved Resolution Whereas, the Board has received varying recommendations on registrant and user involvement in the GNSO, and the issue of how to incorporate the legitimate interests of individual Internet users in constructive yet non-duplicative ways remains an open issue that affects GNSO restructuring. Resolved, (2008-12-11-02) the Board requests that members of the GNSO community work with members of the ALAC/At-Large community and representatives of potential new "non-commercial" constituencies to jointly develop a recommendation for the composition and organizational structure of a Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group that does not duplicate the ALAC and its supporting structures, yet ensures that the gTLD interests of individual Internet users (along with the broader non-commercial community) are effectively represented within the GNSO. This recommendation should be submitted no later than 24 January 2009 for consideration by the Board. On Jan 17, 2009, at 5:34 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Robin,
Please see my responses below.
Chuck
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 4:58 PM To: Council GNSO Cc: NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: [council] commercial and contractual constituencies meddling in structure of noncommercial group is unacceptable
Don't think I can post to the GNSO Council list, so will an NCUC Councilor please pass along this message. Thank you! Robin
----
Dear GNSO Councilors:
It is completely unacceptable for the structure of the new NCSG to be defined and shaped by commercial users and contracting parties. Noncommercial stakeholders can and will define their own structure suitable to themselves and not be manipulated by other stakeholder groups who might seek to undermine its effectiveness. It is naïve and disingenuous to pretend that the different SGs don't have competing and often conflicting interests. [Gomes, Chuck] What gives you the impression that the NCSG will be defined by commercial users and contracting parties?
We note that no one has invited NCUC or ALAC to participate in defining a new structure for the Commercial SG, or the Registrar and Registry SGs. This kind of discrimination among SGs will discourage additional noncommercial entities from participating in ICANN's GNSO. [Gomes, Chuck] What discrimination?
Please note that NCUC has already proposed a structure for the NCSG that has the overwhelming support of the noncommercial stakeholders currently active in ICANN. We have conveyed it to At Large, discussed its principles in public meetings in Cairo, and are in conversations with staff about it now. While we welcome efforts to amend it from new constituency proponents and relevant members of At Large, that proposal will serve as the basis for any NCSG proposals that go to the Board.
We have no objection in principle to working with At large members and RALOs in this process, and as noted before we have already tried to include them in our ongoing process. But we also note that individual or organizational At Large members may also be commercial users and thus ineligible to join a future noncommercial SG, and thus have no legitimate role to play in the definition of our structure.
The Board Governance Committee has made it clear on numerous occasions that Stakeholder Groups themselves should play a leading role in defining their structure. Explicit statements to that effect have been made by Roberto Gaetano, former Board members and BGC member Susan Crawford, and Harald Alvestrand. This is, quite obviously, the right approach. [Gomes, Chuck] Agreed. I am just not clear on why you think it would be different than this. My understanding is that each Constituency Renewal request and Stakeholder Group Charter will be developed by the applicable constituencies and Stakeholder Group members and submitted to the Board for Board approval, not to the GNSO for GNSO approval. And the Board will judge each renewal request and SG Charter against the recommendations that they approved for GNSO improvement.
Best, Robin Gross Chair of Non-Commercial Users Constituency
IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@ipjustice.org
IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@ipjustice.org
Dear Robin, On Sun, 2009-01-18 at 12:56 -0800, Robin Gross wrote:
The answer, unfortunately, is the Board resolution of Dec. 12 (and below) and Avri’s proposed response to it. This calls for the NCSG to be defined by the entire GNSO and ALAC – indeed, it does not even mention existing members of NCUC as participants in the process.
I do _not_ believe this is the case. I was responding to a board motion on how registrant constituencies, in this case various possible non commercial registrant constituencies, were to be accommodated in the the GNSO. Whether it is appropriate for the entire community to be involved in this can be discussed - at the moment the establishment of a new constituency is a community wide matter that is approved by the board. To state that including the whole community however, excludes the NCUC is hard to understand for NCUC is part of the community. What was excluded in my original proposal, though, was mention of representatives from those new potential constituencies. Whatever path is taken to a solution, I do hope these people will be included as was called for by the board motion, and I apologize for overlooking them in the formula I put forward on this list.. This issue has been confounded with the issue of Stakeholder Group Petition/Charter Template where the internal structure of the NCSG to be described. I think these are different, though related, issues. I do not think anyone is questioning anything about the NCSG structure, its steering groups, committees, etc. What makes this seem an issue is that your proposal called for constituencies to be a purely internal matter for the SG, while the current bylaws, and the view of the Board recommendations and the template this remains a Board prerogative. Again, without taking a position on whether constituencies are primary with SG secondary as defined currently and by the Board, or SGs are primary and constituencies secondary as defined in the NCSG proposal, I do believe that it is a tangential topic to the one called for in the Board resolution. Thank you, a.
Thanks for the reply Robin. I guess I interpreted the Board motion much more narrowly, although I can see that how the wording could easily imply more than I concluded. I assumed that the motion was mainly focused on the issue of whether individual users should be a part of the GNSO and the ALAC or just the ALAC because that is one area where the Board has not finalized its recommendations. I am not sure what the intent was with regard to the wording of the Board motion. It seems to me that it would be good to get clarification from Staff on this. I do believe that each of us as existing constituencies, new constituencies and as future stakeholder groups will be evaluated by the Board against the recommendations that they have approved. I expect that the RyC request for renewal and the RySG proposed charter will be evaluated by the Board regarding how we measure up against the overall package of Board approved GNSO improvement recommendations; to the extent that we don't measure up well, I suspect that they will come back to us for changes or clarifications. But I don't see this being the place for Council involvement with regard to specific constituencies or SGs. Chuck ________________________________ From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin@ipjustice.org] Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 3:57 PM To: Council GNSO; Gomes, Chuck Cc: NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: [council] commercial and contractual constituencies meddling in structure of noncommercial group is unacceptable Thanks, Chuck, for your very reasonable response to our concerns on this matter. Your stated position - that Stakeholder Groups themselves should play a leading role in defining their structure - is the same as ours. You ask, "What gives [us] the impression that the NCSG will be defined by commercial users and contracting parties?" The answer, unfortunately, is the Board resolution of Dec. 12 <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-11dec08.htm> (and below) and Avri's proposed response to it. This calls for the NCSG to be defined by the entire GNSO and ALAC - indeed, it does not even mention existing members of NCUC as participants in the process. We are convinced that this is some kind of a mistake by the Board and that it did not really know what it was doing when it passed that resolution. And we have some private communications with Board members that confirm that - it was introduced by staff at the end of a long meeting concerned with gTLDs and was not discussed or debated. However, the resolution is there and concerns us. If you can join us in deferring the formation of this group and resdponding to the Board with some questions about the appropriateness of that resolution we would greatly appreciate it. Thank you, Robin 8. Role of Individual Users in GNSO - Briefing and Action Approved Resolution Whereas, the Board has received varying recommendations on registrant and user involvement in the GNSO, and the issue of how to incorporate the legitimate interests of individual Internet users in constructive yet non-duplicative ways remains an open issue that affects GNSO restructuring. Resolved, (2008-12-11-02) the Board requests that members of the GNSO community work with members of the ALAC/At-Large community and representatives of potential new "non-commercial" constituencies to jointly develop a recommendation for the composition and organizational structure of a Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group that does not duplicate the ALAC and its supporting structures, yet ensures that the gTLD interests of individual Internet users (along with the broader non-commercial community) are effectively represented within the GNSO. This recommendation should be submitted no later than 24 January 2009 for consideration by the Board. On Jan 17, 2009, at 5:34 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Robin, Please see my responses below. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 4:58 PM To: Council GNSO Cc: NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: [council] commercial and contractual constituencies meddling in structure of noncommercial group is unacceptable Don't think I can post to the GNSO Council list, so will an NCUC Councilor please pass along this message. Thank you! Robin ---- Dear GNSO Councilors: It is completely unacceptable for the structure of the new NCSG to be defined and shaped by commercial users and contracting parties. Noncommercial stakeholders can and will define their own structure suitable to themselves and not be manipulated by other stakeholder groups who might seek to undermine its effectiveness. It is naïve and disingenuous to pretend that the different SGs don't have competing and often conflicting interests. [Gomes, Chuck] What gives you the impression that the NCSG will be defined by commercial users and contracting parties? We note that no one has invited NCUC or ALAC to participate in defining a new structure for the Commercial SG, or the Registrar and Registry SGs. This kind of discrimination among SGs will discourage additional noncommercial entities from participating in ICANN's GNSO. [Gomes, Chuck] What discrimination? Please note that NCUC has already proposed a structure for the NCSG that has the overwhelming support of the noncommercial stakeholders currently active in ICANN. We have conveyed it to At Large, discussed its principles in public meetings in Cairo, and are in conversations with staff about it now. While we welcome efforts to amend it from new constituency proponents and relevant members of At Large, that proposal will serve as the basis for any NCSG proposals that go to the Board. We have no objection in principle to working with At large members and RALOs in this process, and as noted before we have already tried to include them in our ongoing process. But we also note that individual or organizational At Large members may also be commercial users and thus ineligible to join a future noncommercial SG, and thus have no legitimate role to play in the definition of our structure. The Board Governance Committee has made it clear on numerous occasions that Stakeholder Groups themselves should play a leading role in defining their structure. Explicit statements to that effect have been made by Roberto Gaetano, former Board members and BGC member Susan Crawford, and Harald Alvestrand. This is, quite obviously, the right approach. [Gomes, Chuck] Agreed. I am just not clear on why you think it would be different than this. My understanding is that each Constituency Renewal request and Stakeholder Group Charter will be developed by the applicable constituencies and Stakeholder Group members and submitted to the Board for Board approval, not to the GNSO for GNSO approval. And the Board will judge each renewal request and SG Charter against the recommendations that they approved for GNSO improvement. Best, Robin Gross Chair of Non-Commercial Users Constituency IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@ipjustice.org IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@ipjustice.org
participants (3)
-
Avri Doria -
Gomes, Chuck -
Robin Gross