Board Resolution on individual users
Dear Councilors and other interested parties: There has been some community discussion over the past weeks regarding the 11 December Board Resolution<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-11dec08.htm>seeking a recommendation on how to incorporate the legitimate interests of individual Internet users in the GNSO in constructive yet non-duplicative ways. I would like to try to clarify the context of that resolution and clear up any misperceptions about its intent. This particular Resolution is the latest step on the part of the Board to resolve a fundamental strategic issue for the organization, that is, the appropriate role and representation of individual (commercial and non-commercial) Internet users in ICANN, and specifically within the GNSO. Its intent is to garner a recommendation from the interested community to assist the Board in resolving a recommendation made to the Board by the Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring (WG-GCR<http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/restructure-working-group-en.htm>) that the composition of the non-contracted party voting house of the GNSO Council should "…be open to membership of all interested parties … that use or provide services for the Internet, … and should explicitly not be restricted to domain registrants as recommended by the BGC." Because ongoing independent review proceedings<http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/>of other ICANN structures have suggested different representational approaches, I think the Board wanted to ensure ample input and advice was received before resolving the matter. The full context and description of this issue was contained in the November Public Comment Forum<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#gnso-users>request for input (see background materials, comments filed, and Staff summary of those contributions). The 11 December Resolution is an effort to help the Board identify a strategic solution that balances ALAC/At-Large and GNSO opportunities for all user and registrant stakeholders. In addition to the previous public comments, the Board hoped that the Resolution would spur additional community dialogue and agreement between interested parties. Given that the original WG-GCR recommendation was a consensus position supported by representatives from all the GNSO constituencies as well as GAC, ALAC and Nominating Committee participants, and that the Board decision on this matter could have broad impact, the Board did not mandate any particular methodology regarding the form that dialogue would take and the Resolution was drafted to offer flexibility in that regard. The Resolution also recognizes that this matter has particularly important (and time sensitive) implications for creation of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG). In view of various community comments since the Resolution was published, it is important to emphasize that it is not intended to be a referendum on the different approaches that have been advanced by groups working on proposed NCSG charters. Staff has been corresponding with and providing assistance to participants about their efforts to produce draft NCSG charters that will ultimately be submitted to the Board. There appear to remain a few fundamental differences of opinion about the interpretation of the Board Governance Committee (BGC) Working Group recommendations<http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03feb08.pdf>, endorsed by the Board, particularly regarding the continued primacy of the constituency structure outlined in the ICANN By-laws. Proposed charters are not intended to be within the scope of the 11 December Resolution. When community members formally submit to the Board one or more petitions/charters for NCSG formation (and other Stakeholder Group charters), those efforts will be publicly posted for comment by all members of the community and will subsequently be evaluated by the Board. As directed by the Board at its 1 October 2008 meeting<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-01oct08.htm>, it is Staff's obligation to work with the community to encourage new participants, facilitate the creation of new constituencies, and support the development of four new Stakeholder Groups. We remain committed to that process and stand ready to assist members of the community. Please contact me and the Policy Staff <policy-staff@icann.org> if you need assistance or would like to discuss these matters. Regards, Denise Michel ICANN Vice President Policy Development
Hi, To be honest in reading this, I still don't know if the so called 'all-GNSO' (1 rep from each SG or constituency + observer from GAC) approach I suggested, with the addition of the representatives of the potential new constituencies is the right answer. It seems to indicate that if that is what the council wanted to do, that would be ok. It also seems to indicate that if it was only NCUC participants, that would be ok too or some solution in between (e.g. 3 NCUC and 1 from each of the other houses ...). If I read correctly it also would allow a solution that opened it up to any 'interested parties' to self identify and participate in the dialogue. The only sine qua non is that it include representatives of those groups wanting to form constituencies and ALAC. We have heard from the NCUC chair, council reps and others that the only appropriate interested GNSO parties are from the NCUC. I would like to hear from some of the rest of the councilors to determine what path we should take. As the deadline is soon, I think that ALAC is starting along the path as was suggested earlier while waiting for the GNSO Council to decide what it wants to do. They are very concerned with having at least some answer - at least methodology and a request for more time - by the deadline. thanks a. On Mon, 2009-01-19 at 21:20 -0800, Denise Michel wrote:
Dear Councilors and other interested parties:
There has been some community discussion over the past weeks regarding the 11 December Board Resolution seeking a recommendation on how to incorporate the legitimate interests of individual Internet users in the GNSO in constructive yet non-duplicative ways. I would like to try to clarify the context of that resolution and clear up any misperceptions about its intent.
This particular Resolution is the latest step on the part of the Board to resolve a fundamental strategic issue for the organization, that is, the appropriate role and representation of individual (commercial and non-commercial) Internet users in ICANN, and specifically within the GNSO. Its intent is to garner a recommendation from the interested community to assist the Board in resolving a recommendation made to the Board by the Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring (WG-GCR) that the composition of the non-contracted party voting house of the GNSO Council should
"…be open to membership of all interested parties … that use or provide services for the Internet, … and should explicitly not be restricted to domain registrants as recommended by the BGC."
Because ongoing independent review proceedings of other ICANN structures have suggested different representational approaches, I think the Board wanted to ensure ample input and advice was received before resolving the matter. The full context and description of this issue was contained in the November Public Comment Forum request for input (see background materials, comments filed, and Staff summary of those contributions).
The 11 December Resolution is an effort to help the Board identify a strategic solution that balances ALAC/At-Large and GNSO opportunities for all user and registrant stakeholders. In addition to the previous public comments, the Board hoped that the Resolution would spur additional community dialogue and agreement between interested parties. Given that the original WG-GCR recommendation was a consensus position supported by representatives from all the GNSO constituencies as well as GAC, ALAC and Nominating Committee participants, and that the Board decision on this matter could have broad impact, the Board did not mandate any particular methodology regarding the form that dialogue would take and the Resolution was drafted to offer flexibility in that regard. The Resolution also recognizes that this matter has particularly important (and time sensitive) implications for creation of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG).
In view of various community comments since the Resolution was published, it is important to emphasize that it is not intended to be a referendum on the different approaches that have been advanced by groups working on proposed NCSG charters. Staff has been corresponding with and providing assistance to participants about their efforts to produce draft NCSG charters that will ultimately be submitted to the Board. There appear to remain a few fundamental differences of opinion about the interpretation of the Board Governance Committee (BGC) Working Group recommendations, endorsed by the Board, particularly regarding the continued primacy of the constituency structure outlined in the ICANN By-laws. Proposed charters are not intended to be within the scope of the 11 December Resolution. When community members formally submit to the Board one or more petitions/charters for NCSG formation (and other Stakeholder Group charters), those efforts will be publicly posted for comment by all members of the community and will subsequently be evaluated by the Board.
As directed by the Board at its 1 October 2008 meeting, it is Staff's obligation to work with the community to encourage new participants, facilitate the creation of new constituencies, and support the development of four new Stakeholder Groups. We remain committed to that process and stand ready to assist members of the community. Please contact me and the Policy Staff if you need assistance or would like to discuss these matters.
Regards,
Denise Michel ICANN Vice President Policy Development
Personally speaking, I would much rather see a proposal from elements of the at-large world, and be invited to comment upon it by its proposers if they felt my advice worth a tinker's cuss. As Council well knows the Commercial Users constituencies have sacrificed three Council seats in the hope that they would be filled instead by representatives of individual users. It is our sincere wish to bring in the voices of individuals currently involved in the at-large into GNSO policy making. Philip
In my opinion we first need to be clear on what our task is and is not: I believe that Denise's message clarifies that our primary task is to comment on the role of individual users in the GNSO; it is not to comment on the NCSG or to help the NCUC and other interested NCSG stakeholders develop their charter. As Denise pointed out, the Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring (WG-GCR), which consisted of representatives of each constituency and the ALAC as well as a NomCom appointee, recommended to the Board that the composition of the non-contracted party voting house of the GNSO Council should "...be open to membership of all interested parties ... that use or provide services for the Internet, ... and should explicitly not be restricted to domain registrants as recommended by the BGC." So it might be useful as a first step to simply confirm that we still support this recommendation. I wouldn't think that this step should require any special working group or drafting team. Do any constituencies or NomCom appointees disagree with this recommendation? Note that the recommendation was made by the WG-GCR in response to requests from Alan, the ALAC representative on the WG. Therefore, a second reasonable step would seem to me to be confirmation from the ALAC that they do indeed support the WG-GCR recommendation. It sounds like the ALAC is already making plans to focus on this issue so I suggest that Avri simply ask them whether they support the WG-GCR recommendation and to provide any comments they have in that regard. If we confirm that both the GNSO and ALAC support involvement of individual users (beyond just registrants) in the GNSO, then here are my suggestions for next steps: 1. The GNSO and ALAC should communicate that to the Board. 2. Assuming the Board approves the recommendation, then it will need to be determined how that can best happen. That, I believe, is primarily the task of the existing and potential members of the future non-commercial and commercial SGs. They have the responsibility of developing and submitting charters. 3. It will be up to the Board to review the proposed charters and decide whether it fulfills the GNSO improvement recommendations related to constituencies and stakeholder groups. I believe that it would be wise for all of us in both GNSO houses to attempt to involve potential future stakeholders in our charter development efforts to the extent that is feasible. I recognize that that is a very challenging task. But, as applicable, we could at least reach out to invidual users and to groups that have formally communicated expressions of interests to form constituencies and request their input. In the case of individual users, the At Large community hopefully can serve as a good source of individual users. Should the GNSO as a whole have any role in determining how to incorporate individual users into the noncontracted party house? I think that is up to those who will make up the noncontracted party house, both existing participants and future participants. I believe all existing participants are currently working on developing draft SG charters and hopefully they are involving future participants in that process. If the latter is not the case, then it may be that the Council can help facilitate that. If the Council so approves, a reasonable step for the Council to take might be to reach out to the future participants, especially to individual users via the ALAC (or other means) and to groups that have formally expressed interest in forming constituencies to find out if they have been involved in charter development activities. In my opinion, this should only be done with the concurrence of the potential applicable stakeholder group members (i.e., those preparing charters). If the GNSO and/or ALAC do not support incorporating individual users in the GNSO or if the Board does not approve that recommendation, then I think our task may be simpler. But, because our deadline for submitting charters is coming up very quickly, we need some indication very soon (NLT end of January) where each of three major parties stand, the GNSO, the ALAC and the Board. It would be a waste of time developing charters that involve individual users if that is not going to happen. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 5:46 AM To: GNSO Council Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Janis Karklins; Bertrand de La Chapelle Subject: [council] Re: Board Resolution on individual users
Hi,
To be honest in reading this, I still don't know if the so called 'all-GNSO' (1 rep from each SG or constituency + observer from GAC) approach I suggested, with the addition of the representatives of the potential new constituencies is the right answer. It seems to indicate that if that is what the council wanted to do, that would be ok. It also seems to indicate that if it was only NCUC participants, that would be ok too or some solution in between (e.g. 3 NCUC and 1 from each of the other houses ...). If I read correctly it also would allow a solution that opened it up to any 'interested parties' to self identify and participate in the dialogue. The only sine qua non is that it include representatives of those groups wanting to form constituencies and ALAC.
We have heard from the NCUC chair, council reps and others that the only appropriate interested GNSO parties are from the NCUC. I would like to hear from some of the rest of the councilors to determine what path we should take.
As the deadline is soon, I think that ALAC is starting along the path as was suggested earlier while waiting for the GNSO Council to decide what it wants to do. They are very concerned with having at least some answer - at least methodology and a request for more time - by the deadline.
thanks
a.
Dear Councilors and other interested parties:
There has been some community discussion over the past weeks regarding the 11 December Board Resolution seeking a recommendation on how to incorporate the legitimate interests of individual Internet users in the GNSO in constructive yet non-duplicative ways. I would like to try to clarify the context of that resolution and clear up any misperceptions about its intent.
This particular Resolution is the latest step on the part of the Board to resolve a fundamental strategic issue for the organization, that is, the appropriate role and representation of individual (commercial and non-commercial) Internet users in ICANN, and specifically within the GNSO. Its intent is to garner a recommendation from the interested community to assist the Board in resolving a recommendation made to the Board by the Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring (WG-GCR) that the composition of the non-contracted party voting house of the GNSO Council should
"...be open to membership of all interested parties ... that use or provide services for the Internet, ... and should explicitly not be restricted to domain registrants as recommended by the BGC."
Because ongoing independent review proceedings of other ICANN structures have suggested different representational approaches, I think the Board wanted to ensure ample input and advice was received before resolving the matter. The full context and description of this issue was contained in the November Public Comment Forum request for input (see background materials, comments filed, and Staff
those contributions).
The 11 December Resolution is an effort to help the Board identify a strategic solution that balances ALAC/At-Large and GNSO opportunities for all user and registrant stakeholders. In addition to
public comments, the Board hoped that the Resolution would spur additional community dialogue and agreement between interested parties. Given that the original WG-GCR recommendation was a consensus position supported by representatives from all the GNSO constituencies as well as GAC, ALAC and Nominating Committee participants, and that the Board decision on this matter could have broad impact,
did not mandate any particular methodology regarding the form that dialogue would take and the Resolution was drafted to offer flexibility in that regard. The Resolution also recognizes
matter has particularly important (and time sensitive) implications for creation of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG).
In view of various community comments since the Resolution was published, it is important to emphasize that it is not intended to be a referendum on the different approaches that have been advanced by groups working on proposed NCSG charters. Staff has been corresponding with and providing assistance to participants about their efforts to produce draft NCSG charters that will
submitted to the Board. There appear to remain a few fundamental differences of opinion about the interpretation of the Board Governance Committee (BGC) Working Group recommendations, endorsed by the Board, particularly regarding the continued primacy of the constituency structure outlined in the ICANN By-laws. Proposed charters are not intended to be within the scope of the 11 December Resolution. When community members formally submit to the Board one or more petitions/charters for NCSG formation (and other Stakeholder Group charters), those efforts will be publicly posted for comment by all members of the community and will subsequently be evaluated by the Board.
As directed by the Board at its 1 October 2008 meeting, it is Staff's obligation to work with the community to encourage new
On Mon, 2009-01-19 at 21:20 -0800, Denise Michel wrote: summary of the previous the Board that this ultimately be participants,
facilitate the creation of new constituencies, and support the development of four new Stakeholder Groups. We remain committed to that process and stand ready to assist members of the community. Please contact me and the Policy Staff if you need assistance or would like to discuss these matters.
Regards,
Denise Michel ICANN Vice President Policy Development
(note, i have removed the cc list) On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 10:19 -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
As Denise pointed out, the Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring (WG-GCR), which consisted of representatives of each constituency and the ALAC as well as a NomCom appointee, recommended to the Board that the composition of the non-contracted party voting house of the GNSO Council should "...be open to membership of all interested parties ... that use or provide services for the Internet, ... and should explicitly not be restricted to domain registrants as recommended by the BGC." So it might be useful as a first step to simply confirm that we still support this recommendation. I wouldn't think that this step should require any special working group or drafting team. Do any constituencies or NomCom appointees disagree with this recommendation?
I think this is a reasonable step, though I would recommend that we take a vote on it that can show what level of support there is in the council, after council members have consulted their constituencies as appropriate. I would like to see a motion on this for next week's meeting. thanks a.
Unless someone else wants to do it, I will draft such a motion and submit & post it NLT tomorrow. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 11:14 AM To: GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] Re: Board Resolution on individual users
(note, i have removed the cc list)
As Denise pointed out, the Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring (WG-GCR), which consisted of representatives of each constituency and the ALAC as well as a NomCom appointee, recommended to the Board that the composition of the non-contracted party voting house of
Council should "...be open to membership of all interested
On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 10:19 -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote: the GNSO parties ...
that use or provide services for the Internet, ... and should explicitly not be restricted to domain registrants as recommended by the BGC." So it might be useful as a first step to simply confirm that we still support this recommendation. I wouldn't think that this step should require any special working group or drafting team. Do any constituencies or NomCom appointees disagree with this recommendation?
I think this is a reasonable step, though I would recommend that we take a vote on it that can show what level of support there is in the council, after council members have consulted their constituencies as appropriate.
I would like to see a motion on this for next week's meeting.
thanks
a.
Hi Avri, Just one small distinction---noncommercial stakeholders, not necessarily NCUC. Cheers, Bill On Jan 20, 2009, at 11:45 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
We have heard from the NCUC chair, council reps and others that the only appropriate interested GNSO parties are from the NCUC. I would like to hear from some of the rest of the councilors to determine what path we should take.
Dear GNSO Council, Constituency Leaders and Operations Steering Committee Members; As you will recall, we launched a GNSO Constituency Survey at the start of the Cairo Meeting and concluded it, after a two week extension, on 14 December 2008. The survey was designed to collect constituency input in the following four specific areas highlighted in the Board's Report on GNSO Improvements: (1) Developing a standardized "Toolkit" of services; (2) Creating a centralized membership registry or database; (3) Knowledge/skill training for leaders and members; and (4) Recruiting/outreach programs associated with constituency growth and expansion. Attached, as promised, is a comprehensive final report of the survey's findings which covers who, what, when, why, and how as well as summarizing each question and an initial set of observations/conclusions that can be drawn from participant responses. Our original intention was to provide this input to the Operations Steering Committee's (OSC) Work Team chartered to develop recommendations in these disciplines. We hope the team will find the materials helpful in their deliberations. Thanks to everyone's active engagement in this effort, especially those who helped with testing and many of you who personally participated in the survey. The planning worked out well in that we hoped to have this product available on or about the time that the Work Team commenced deliberations. Many thanks to Ken Bour for leading the effort to develop the survey, marshalling it forward and preparing the final report. We will post the report on the GNSO Improvements Information Web Portal ( http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ ) as well as the OSC's Wiki page ( https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?operations_steering_committee_osc ). A courtesy copy of this report will also be sent to the survey respondents not on this circulation list along with our "thanks" for their participation. If you have any questions about this report or any other aspect of the survey, please email me. Regards, Rob Hoggarth Senior Policy Director ICANN
Thanks Rob. It seems to me that there is probably useful data in this report for all five of the GNSO Improvement Work Teams and hence should be provided to the WTs once they are formed. I think this should also be sent to the PPSC. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-osc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robert Hoggarth Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 3:52 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org; gnso-osc@icann.org; Jonathon Nevett Subject: [gnso-osc] GNSO Constituency Survey - Final Report Dear GNSO Council, Constituency Leaders and Operations Steering Committee Members; As you will recall, we launched a GNSO Constituency Survey at the start of the Cairo Meeting and concluded it, after a two week extension, on 14 December 2008. The survey was designed to collect constituency input in the following four specific areas highlighted in the Board's Report on GNSO Improvements: (1) Developing a standardized "Toolkit" of services; (2) Creating a centralized membership registry or database; (3) Knowledge/skill training for leaders and members; and (4) Recruiting/outreach programs associated with constituency growth and expansion. Attached, as promised, is a comprehensive final report of the survey's findings which covers who, what, when, why, and how as well as summarizing each question and an initial set of observations/conclusions that can be drawn from participant responses. Our original intention was to provide this input to the Operations Steering Committee's (OSC) Work Team chartered to develop recommendations in these disciplines. We hope the team will find the materials helpful in their deliberations. Thanks to everyone's active engagement in this effort, especially those who helped with testing and many of you who personally participated in the survey. The planning worked out well in that we hoped to have this product available on or about the time that the Work Team commenced deliberations. Many thanks to Ken Bour for leading the effort to develop the survey, marshalling it forward and preparing the final report. We will post the report on the GNSO Improvements Information Web Portal ( http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ ) as well as the OSC's Wiki page ( https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?operations_steering_committee_o sc ). A courtesy copy of this report will also be sent to the survey respondents not on this circulation list along with our "thanks" for their participation. If you have any questions about this report or any other aspect of the survey, please email me. Regards, Rob Hoggarth Senior Policy Director ICANN
participants (6)
-
Avri Doria -
Denise Michel -
Gomes, Chuck -
Philip Sheppard -
Robert Hoggarth -
William Drake