- EURO-Discuss - lists.icann.org

WG: [ALAC-Announce] At-Large Response to the IRT (Trademark Issues in gTLDs) Process Forming - Join the Effort!
by Wolf Ludwig March 18, 2009

March 18, 2009

Dear all, as discussed at our yesterday's EURALO call, we are looking for volunteers/interested persons from EURALO to participate in the ALAC WG to discuss and prepare an At-Large Response to the IRT Process -- further details you can find below. If anybody feels him/herself familiar with the subject and formulating a consumer point of view, please give me a short note and subscribe to the At-Large new gTLD Working Group on the IRT Process. Thanks and regards, Wolf At-Large Staff wrote Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:04:5 >Dear Community Members: > >Many of you have expressed an interest in being involved in the At-Large New >gTLD working group as it focuses on the work of the Implementation >Recommendation Team ("IRT") which is to draft a report for the Board by 24th >April. > >WHAT IS THE IRT? > >As provided by the Board resolution of 6 March 2009: > >³... based on the public comment submissions received regarding the New gTLD >Draft Applicant Guidebook, ICANN Staff has determined that the >implementation issues involving trademark protection need additional >community input and analysis. These issues exist today within the existing >gTLDs. > >Whereas, members of the community with knowledge and expertise in this area >have proposed a way to synthesize the comments received in this area, and, >with input from the broader community, including WIPO, propose solutions to >the Staff on these issues in a timely manner. > >Whereas, the board recognizes that resolution of these issues would be >beneficial to the introduction of new gTLDs, it is > >Therefore resolved (2009.03.06.06), that the Board requests the GNSO's >Intellectual Property Constituency in consultation with staff to convene an >Implementation Recommendation Team comprised of an internationally diverse >group of persons with knowledge, expertise, and experience in the fields of >trademark, consumer protection, or competition law, and the interplay of >trademarks and the domain name system to develop and propose solutions to >the overarching issue of trademark protection in connection with the >introduction of new gTLDs. ³ > >Further information (English only) may be found at: >http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-6-06mar09-en.htm. > >Anyone who wishes to participate in the At-Large new gTLD Working Group on >the IRT Process is welcome to do so - please subscribe to the New GTLD >Mailing list at this link: >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg_atlarge-lists.icann. >org. NOTE: If you have previously sent an email to the staff, or in >community mailing lists, you should still join the mailing list directly as >all At-Large lists are self-service, you have not been subscribed by a >third-party. > >A microsite for the At-Large working group on the IRT is being established >at >https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?at_large_irt_process_working_gro >up. Check back often as content will be added often. > >The IRT process itself is likely to be conducted in english-only. The >At-Large community members participating in discussing the work of the IRT >can be supported in English and Spanish, with respect to telephonic meeting >interpretation, and to the extent possible document translation, so don't >let language stand in your way of participating in this key policy >development process. The Staff do not guarantee that all documents will be >translated. > >For those of you who have asked how to directly participate in the work of >the IRT, please note that the list of participants is now closed. There are >volunteers from At-Large who responded before the deadline; the At-Large >working group on the IRT will be closely connected to those individuals and >they will be helping to ensure that At-Large¹s views are represented in the >IRT¹s work. > >-- >Regards, > >Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Heidi Ullrich, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms >ICANN At-Large Staff >email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC-Announce mailing list >ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce_atlarge-lists… > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig www.comunica-ch.net Digitale Allemd http://blog.allmend.ch - EURALO https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi?euralo_icann_at_large_europe

1 0

WG: [ALAC-Announce] Mexico City Briefing Note Published
by Wolf Ludwig March 18, 2009

March 18, 2009

FYI At-Large Staff sent Wed, 18 Mar 2009 08:48: >Mexico City Briefing Note Published > >9 March 2009 > >A briefing note <http://mex.icann.org/briefing-note> on the Mexico City >meeting of 1-6 March 2009 has been published. > >ICANN's 34th international public meeting was hosted by ICANN, the Mexican >Internet Association (AMIPCI), the Network Information Center (NIC) Mexico, >and the Internet Society (ISOC) Mexico. Representatives of over 90 entities >from ICANN's global individual Internet user community also gathered at the >At-Large Summit which was an integral part of the meeting. > >The briefing note summarizes key developments at the meeting and outlines >next steps and sources of further information for each. The topics included >are: > > * New generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) > * Internationalized Domain Names and the IDN Fast Track > * At Large Summit > * Amendments to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) > * The Improving Institutional Confidence (IIC) consultation > * GNSO Improvements > * Independent Reviews > * A summary of Board resolutions > >The briefing note is an informal summary. The authoritative records of >meetings are be available in published and adopted minutes. > >Further information about the meeting, including presentations and >transcripts, is available at http://mex.icann.org/. The At-Large Summit >microsite is accessible at http://www.atlarge.icann.org/summit. > >Information about the next meeting which will be from 21-26 June 2008 in >Sydney, Australia can be found at its dedicated website at >http://syd.icann.org. > >Related links: > >Mexico City briefing note: http://mex.icann.org/briefing-note > >Mexico City meeting website: http://mex.icann.org/ > >Sydney meeting website: http://syd.icann.org > >-- >Regards, > >Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Heidi Ullrich, Marie-Hélène >Bouchoms, Gisella Gruber-White >ICANN At-Large Staff >email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC-Announce mailing list >ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce_atlarge-lists… > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig www.comunica-ch.net Digitale Allemd http://blog.allmend.ch - EURALO https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi?euralo_icann_at_large_europe

1 0

Fwd: [NCUC-DISCUSS] NCSG Proposal Version 6
by Adam Peake March 17, 2009

March 17, 2009

Latest version of the NCUC's proposals for the GNSO noncommercial stakeholder's group attached. And a list of open public comments: <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200904.html> Adam >Delivered-To: ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp >X-Spamfilter-host: darwin.junkemailfilter.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com >X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure > engine=1.12.7400:2.4.4,1.2.40,4.0.166 > >definitions=2009-03-16_04:2009-03-13,2009-03-16,2009-03-16 > signatures=0 >X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 > ipscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 > classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx > engine=5.0.0-0811170000 definitions=main-0903160142 >Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:14:37 -0700 >Reply-To: Robin Gross <robin(a)IPJUSTICE.ORG> >Sender: Non-Commercial User Constituency <NCUC-DISCUSS(a)LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> >From: Robin Gross <robin(a)IPJUSTICE.ORG> >Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] NCSG Proposal Version 6 >To: NCUC-DISCUSS(a)LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > >Attached is the revised and latest version of >the NCSG proposal and executive summary (based >on discussions in and since Mexico City). > >Please let me know if there are any suggestions >for further improvements to the proposal by the >end of the business day, so it can be submitted >to the ICANN Board by the deadline. > >Thank you to all of those who helped provide >drafting and comments to the latest proposal >(especially Mary, Carlos, and Brenden). This >has been a real community effort from a growing >team of engaged members. >Thanks again! > >All best, >Robin > >______________________________________ >The NCUC is pleased to submit a proposed charter >for the new Noncommercial Stakeholders Group >(NCSG). This revised proposal reflects comments >received in meetings with the Board Governance >Committee, during a ³Users¹ House² session and a >joint ALAC-NCUC session at the 34th ICANN Public >Meeting, in Mexico City, and in discussions with >ICANN staff as well as among NCUC members. > >This cover letter to our proposal provides: (i) >an executive summary of its essential elements; >(ii) an explanation on how it advances the >principles and goals of the GNSO Improvements >process through the adoption of innovative >approaches to certain problems posed by the >formation of stakeholder groups; and finally >(iii) a summary of the specific changes made in >comparison to our previous version of the NCSG >proposal, as submitted to the ICANN Board on >February 28, 2009. > >1. Essential Elements of the proposal: > >Noncommercial stakeholders join the NCSG >directly, and the NCSG keeps track of membership >and administers voting for Council seats by the >membership as a whole. >The NCSG is administered by an annually elected >Chair and a Policy Committee. The Policy >Committee is composed of the 6 elected GNSO >Councilors and one representative from each >Constituency. >There are three classes of membership: 1) large >organizations (which receive 4 votes), small >organizations (which receive 2 votes) and >individuals (who receive 1 vote) >Constituencies are created as subunits within >the NCSG and its formation follows some simple >procedures, managed by the Policy Committee, >which then submits the petition for formation of >a new Constituency to the ICANN Board´s approval. >We have de-linked Constituency formation from >Council seats so that NCSG participants do not >have artificial incentives to fragment into >competing groups, ensuring that a voting system, >conducted through all members of the SG, will >result in a better and diverse representation on >the GNSO than any other model that strings the >formation of a Constituency to a seat the >Council, favoring corporatism over democracy. >Constituencies are given special rights to >propose Working Groups and assured that their >positions are incorporated into any and all >public comments submitted by the NCSG into the >policy development process. > >To protect the voice of minorities in the policy >process, we require all NCSG representatives on >the GNSO Council to vote in favor of the >formation of a Working Group if it has the >support of 1/3 of the constituencies or 1/5 of >the whole membership. > >2. How our proposal addresses Principles and >Goals of the GNSO Improvements process: > >We would like to explain how this proposal >advances the principles and goals of the GNSO >Improvements process. As you know, the Board has >articulated four ³vital principles² that are >critical to the GNSO revitalization process. >They are: > >§ GNSO policy development activities >should become more visible and transparent to a >wider range of stakeholders; >§ Reforms should enhance the >representativeness of the GNSO Council and its >constituencies; >§ Operational changes should help enhance >the GNSO¹s ability to reach consensus on policy >positions that enjoy wide support in the ICANN >community; and >§ GNSO stakeholder representation >structures need to be flexible and adaptable. > >Our proposal meets these goals better than any of the proposed alternatives. > >Principle 1: Visibility and Transparency. >When noncommercial stakeholders are fragmented >into independent constituencies, each with their >own mailing list, administrative structure and >representatives, it is literally impossible for >an ordinary noncommercial organization to keep >track of them all. >Noncommercial stakeholders in one constituency >would have no idea what is happening in other >constituencies. Our proposal integrates all >policy deliberation and voting into a unified >structure. This enhances the visibility and >transparency of the SG. > >Principle 2: Representativeness. >Our proposal enhances representation in several >ways. First, by adopting a model of flexible >and easy-to-form constituencies as subunits >under the NCSG, we allow a far more diverse set >of interests and coalitions to form. Most >important, through unified voting for GNSO >Council seats, our proposal ensures that whoever >represents noncommercial stakeholders on the >Council has support across all constituencies, >not just a bare majority of a small subgroup of >the SG. > >Principle 3: Consensus. >We believe that the old GNSO constituency >structure, which assigns a specific number of >Council seats to specific constituencies, is >inimical to the formation of consensus. That >approach encourages small subgroups to break >away and form their ³own² constituencies in >order to gain a guaranteed Council seat. Once a >constituency controls specific Council >seats/votes, they have little incentive to seek >support from other Council members for their >views or their representatives. We already have >evidence from this; we note that none of the >³new constituencies² currently being proposed >for the Noncommercial Stakeholders actually >represent newcomers to the ICANN space. All of >them are existing members of NCUC or RALOs who >wish to gain seats on the Council without having >to win an election among a large number of other >noncommercial entities and individuals. > >Our proposal understands that policy development >in the new GNSO will not come from a Council >acting as a legislator, but from consensus-based >Working Groups. Therefore, we allow relatively >small minorities of the NCSG to bind our Council >representatives to support the formation of a >Working Group. Once a Working Group is formed, >its proponents will have to convince many other >stakeholders to agree on a common policy. We >think there should be a low threshold for the >formation of a WG, so that anyone can have a >chance to convince the rest of the GNSO of the >need for a policy. > >Principle 4: Flexibility and Adaptability. >The old constituency model is broken. It >rigidly assigns Council seats and representation >to categories of users that are constantly >changing, categories that may overlap in >numerous ways. Dividing the world up into >mutually exclusive categories known as >³constituencies² is always bound to exclude some >people who don¹t fit the categories, and at the >same time over-represent entities who qualify >for two or three of the categories. By >detaching Constituencies from Council seats, our >proposal can make constituencies much more >flexible and lightweight. We make >constituencies more like intra-Stakeholder Group >working groups easier to form and not mutually >exclusive. NCSG members can join multiple >constituencies, and constituencies can form and >disband more easily without disrupting the >entire representational structure of the NCSG. >Under the old model, once a constituency is >formed, there is a strong danger that it can be >captured or controlled by a small group, >especially as membership and participation >declines. The NCSG charter proposed here solves >this problem by situating constituencies in a >large NCSG membership that cannot be easily >captured, as addressed in the item below. > >3. Changes made to the previous (2/28/9) version of the proposal: > >Dealing with ³Threat² of Capture. > >A central concern is the ability of special >interests or a discrete group to gain a majority >of GNSO Councilor seats in the reformed GNSO. >Comments suggested that existing participants >within the NCUC might have special advantage, or >the proposed structure might be subject to >³gaming,² specifically capture of Councilor >seats by a simple majority. > >To the first point, the current NCUC will >dissolve completely when the charter goes into >effect. Existing individual and organizational >members will be free to form new constituencies >and participate in elections according to the >charter rules. They are not privileged in any >manner, having the same rights as any new >members that chose to join the Stakeholder >Group. The various interests among NCUC members >are extremely diverse, perhaps the most varied >of all SG¹s, and are difficult to capture by a >single viewpoint, given the breadth of >noncommercial interests. > >To the second point, the threat of ³gaming² >exists under any proposed structure. It should >be recognized that concerns about some >coordinated push to ³capture² the Noncommercial >Constituency have been made since 1999. >However, there is no factual basis to suggest >this has occurred. Instead, and as the Board >realized in reviewing the BGC recommendations, >the issue has always been under-representation >of noncommercial interests. It has always been >the case for noncommercial interests that there >are not enough people willing and able to get >deeply involved and do the work required to >participate effectively in the GNSO. Despite >this ongoing difficulty, NCUC¹s membership has >increased by more than 40% within the last six >months, partially due to the membership being >opened for individuals to join. > >Nonetheless, in response to this perceived >threat of capture, we have extended the minimum >voting eligibility period for new Members to 90 >days (Section 3.4.3). Such an adjustment should >allow opportunity for countervailing interests >to form, preventing the flooding of new members¹ >right before an election with the specific >purpose of winning it, without any actual >engagement of such members in the discussions >and activities pertaining to the Stakeholders >Group. > >The current constituency-based model actually >aggravates problems of capture because it >potentially institutionalizes special >interests. >Once a constituency has formed and been >allocated seats, there is no reasonable >mechanism to remove a constituency¹s >representatives from the Council, no matter how >the broader membership base may change. >We partially address this concern by now >requiring final approval of Constituencies by >the ICANN Board (Section 2.3.1). > >Dealing with the demand for diversity in representation on the GNSO Council: > >Attempting to categorize individuals and >organizations according to constituencies is >inimical to growing diverse participation in the >stakeholder group. A constituency-based model >of allocating seats is neither flexible nor >adaptable to a growing noncommercial membership. > > >In this regard, the discussions in which we >engaged during the Mexico meeting featured a >wide range of comments on the issue of >representation, and providing adequate solutions >for a long-term perspective, as well as creating >complex voting methods that would end up >decreasing the broader representation we seek. > > >One approach suggested that an interim system in >which each Constituency would be granted an >automatic seat at the GNSO Council could be >created as long as no more than six >Constituencies exist within the NCSG structure. >This suggestion not only fails to provide a >long-term solution for the issue, it also >creates artificial incentives for the formation >of groups that have little concern for the wider >range of the membership who the NCSG Council >must serve. > > >The outcome of an interim decision like that >would encourage the election of NCSG Councilors >who have little or no incentive to reach out to >other views and constituencies that naturally >constitute the non-commercial interest in ICANN. > > >The other proposal ties up non-commercial energy >and resources with in-fighting between competing >constituencies and dispute mechanisms. >It presents complex systems for voting and/or >for the allocation of members inside the specter >of six forced Constituencies. And its voting >mechanism seems to create a difficult method for >measuring the will of the members that integrate >the NCSG. > > >There have been even some suggestions for >fragmented voting. We deem that no other system >is simpler and direct than allowing each member >to vote and that representation results from the >election of the ones to whom the majority of >votes has been casted. > > >In short, the other NCSG proposal allocates GNSO >Council seats by constituencies competing with >one another, while our proposal allocates >Council seats via constituencies cooperating >with one another to find a consensus. > > >The recently submitted charters of the >Registries and Registrars provide for GNSO >Councilors to be elected by Stakeholder >Group-wide membership rather than individual >constituencies. In this matter, each of these >charters (ours, the Registries, and the >Registrars) seem to present the same solution >for the issue of representation. > >The reason for this in the non-commercial >stakeholder group is simple: There are no >concentrated benefits for noncommercial >participants to counter their costs of >participating in a global policy making >institution. A simple solution to this is to >lower structural barriers to participation, as >the NCSG charter does by providing for direct >representation and easy participation within >constituencies. > >Our proposed NCSG Charter tackles the issue of >representation, avoids interim suggestions, and >puts forth a system that allows the broadest and >most democratic representation of noncommercial >interests. > >Conclusion > >Although it has transformed significantly along >the way, our proposal is not new. We have been >working on this charter since June of 2008, and >have entered into extensive consultations with >ICANN staff members, ALAC, At Large >representatives, board members, and our own >constituency members on its development. We >feel that much has been improved to guarantee >diversity in representation, to secure a space >for minority views to be heard, and to address >the concern over capture. > >We thank ICANN for allowing us an opportunity to >provide this revised proposal that reflects the >comments and suggestions received from all >interested parties who have joined in the effort >to present the best charter possible for the >NCSG structure, built upon consensus and the >principles that guide the GNSO Improvements >process. We stand ready to continue to work >with the ICANN community to improve this NCSG >proposal eve further. > >Best regards, > >Robin Gross, >Chair, Noncommercial 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(a)ipjustice.org > > > > >Attached is the revised and latest version of >the NCSG proposal and executive summary (based >on discussions in and since Mexico City). > >Please let me know if there are any suggestions >for further improvements to the proposal by the >end of the business day, so it can be submitted >to the ICANN Board by the deadline. > >Thank you to all of those who helped provide >drafting and comments to the latest proposal >(especially Mary, Carlos, and Brenden). This has >been a real community effort from a growing team >of engaged members. Thanks again! > >All best, >Robin > >______________________________________ > >The NCUC is pleased to submit a proposed charter >for the new Noncommercial Stakeholders Group >(NCSG). This revised proposal reflects comments >received in meetings with the Board Governance >Committee, during a ³Users¹ House² session and a >joint ALAC-NCUC session at the 34th ICANN Public >Meeting, in Mexico City, and in discussions with >ICANN staff as well as among NCUC members. > >This cover letter to our proposal provides: (i) >an executive summary of its essential elements; >(ii) an explanation on how it advances the >principles and goals of the GNSO Improvements >process through the adoption of innovative >approaches to certain problems posed by the >formation of stakeholder groups; and finally >(iii) a summary of the specific changes made in >comparison to our previous version of the NCSG >proposal, as submitted to the ICANN Board on >February 28, 2009. > >1. Essential Elements of the proposal: > >1. Noncommercial stakeholders join the NCSG >directly, and the NCSG keeps track of membership >and administers voting for Council seats by the >membership as a whole. >2. The NCSG is administered by an annually >elected Chair and a Policy Committee. The Policy >Committee is composed of the 6 elected GNSO >Councilors and one representative from each >Constituency. >3. There are three classes of membership: 1) >large organizations (which receive 4 votes), >small organizations (which receive 2 votes) and >individuals (who receive 1 vote) >4. Constituencies are created as subunits >within the NCSG and its formation follows some >simple procedures, managed by the Policy >Committee, which then submits the petition for >formation of a new Constituency to the ICANN >BoardZs approval. >5. We have de-linked Constituency formation >from Council seats so that NCSG participants do >not have artificial incentives to fragment into >competing groups, ensuring that a voting system, >conducted through all members of the SG, will >result in a better and diverse representation on >the GNSO than any other model that strings the >formation of a Constituency to a seat the >Council, favoring corporatism over democracy. >6. Constituencies are given special rights >to propose Working Groups and assured that their >positions are incorporated into any and all >public comments submitted by the NCSG into the >policy development process. > >To protect the voice of minorities in the policy >process, we require all NCSG representatives on >the GNSO Council to vote in favor of the >formation of a Working Group if it has the >support of 1/3 of the constituencies or 1/5 of >the whole membership. > >2. How our proposal addresses Principles and >Goals of the GNSO Improvements process: > >We would like to explain how this proposal >advances the principles and goals of the GNSO >Improvements process. As you know, the Board has >articulated four ³vital principles² that are >critical to the GNSO revitalization process. >They are: > >§ GNSO policy development activities should >become more visible and transparent to a wider >range of stakeholders; > >§ Reforms should enhance the representativeness >of the GNSO Council and its constituencies; > >§ Operational changes should help enhance the >GNSO¹s ability to reach consensus on policy >positions that enjoy wide support in the ICANN >community; and > >§ GNSO stakeholder representation structures >need to be flexible and adaptable. > >Our proposal meets these goals better than any of the proposed alternatives. >Principle 1: Visibility and Transparency. >When noncommercial stakeholders are fragmented >into independent constituencies, each with their >own mailing list, administrative structure and >representatives, it is literally impossible for >an ordinary noncommercial organization to keep >track of them all. Noncommercial stakeholders in >one constituency would have no idea what is >happening in other constituencies. Our proposal >integrates all policy deliberation and voting >into a unified structure. This enhances the >visibility and transparency of the SG. >Principle 2: Representativeness. >Our proposal enhances representation in several >ways. First, by adopting a model of flexible and >easy-to-form constituencies as subunits under >the NCSG, we allow a far more diverse set of >interests and coalitions to form. Most >important, through unified voting for GNSO >Council seats, our proposal ensures that whoever >represents noncommercial stakeholders on the >Council has support across all constituencies, >not just a bare majority of a small subgroup of >the SG. >Principle 3: Consensus. >We believe that the old GNSO constituency >structure, which assigns a specific number of >Council seats to specific constituencies, is >inimical to the formation of consensus. That >approach encourages small subgroups to break >away and form their ³own² constituencies in >order to gain a guaranteed Council seat. Once a >constituency controls specific Council >seats/votes, they have little incentive to seek >support from other Council members for their >views or their representatives. We already have >evidence from this; we note that none of the >³new constituencies² currently being proposed >for the Noncommercial Stakeholders actually >represent newcomers to the ICANN space. All of >them are existing members of NCUC or RALOs who >wish to gain seats on the Council without having >to win an election among a large number of other >noncommercial entities and individuals. >Our proposal understands that policy development >in the new GNSO will not come from a Council >acting as a legislator, but from consensus-based >Working Groups. Therefore, we allow relatively >small minorities of the NCSG to bind our Council >representatives to support the formation of a >Working Group. Once a Working Group is formed, >its proponents will have to convince many other >stakeholders to agree on a common policy. We >think there should be a low threshold for the >formation of a WG, so that anyone can have a >chance to convince the rest of the GNSO of the >need for a policy. >Principle 4: Flexibility and Adaptability. >The old constituency model is broken. It rigidly >assigns Council seats and representation to >categories of users that are constantly >changing, categories that may overlap in >numerous ways. Dividing the world up into >mutually exclusive categories known as >³constituencies² is always bound to exclude some >people who don¹t fit the categories, and at the >same time over-represent entities who qualify >for two or three of the categories. By detaching >Constituencies from Council seats, our proposal >can make constituencies much more flexible and >lightweight. We make constituencies more like >intra-Stakeholder Group working groups easier >to form and not mutually exclusive. NCSG members >can join multiple constituencies, and >constituencies can form and disband more easily >without disrupting the entire representational >structure of the NCSG. > >Under the old model, once a constituency is >formed, there is a strong danger that it can be >captured or controlled by a small group, >especially as membership and participation >declines. The NCSG charter proposed here solves >this problem by situating constituencies in a >large NCSG membership that cannot be easily >captured, as addressed in the item below. > >3. Changes made to the previous (2/28/9) version of the proposal: > >Dealing with ³Threat² of Capture. > >A central concern is the ability of special >interests or a discrete group to gain a majority >of GNSO Councilor seats in the reformed GNSO. >Comments suggested that existing participants >within the NCUC might have special advantage, or >the proposed structure might be subject to >³gaming,² specifically capture of Councilor >seats by a simple majority. > >To the first point, the current NCUC will >dissolve completely when the charter goes into >effect. Existing individual and organizational >members will be free to form new constituencies >and participate in elections according to the >charter rules. They are not privileged in any >manner, having the same rights as any new >members that chose to join the Stakeholder >Group. The various interests among NCUC members >are extremely diverse, perhaps the most varied >of all SG¹s, and are difficult to capture by a >single viewpoint, given the breadth of >noncommercial interests. > >To the second point, the threat of ³gaming² >exists under any proposed structure. It should >be recognized that concerns about some >coordinated push to ³capture² the Noncommercial >Constituency have been made since 1999. However, >there is no factual basis to suggest this has >occurred. Instead, and as the Board realized in >reviewing the BGC recommendations, the issue has >always been under-representation of >noncommercial interests. It has always been the >case for noncommercial interests that there are >not enough people willing and able to get deeply >involved and do the work required to participate >effectively in the GNSO. Despite this ongoing >difficulty, NCUC¹s membership has increased by >more than 40% within the last six months, >partially due to the membership being opened for >individuals to join. > >Nonetheless, in response to this perceived >threat of capture, we have extended the minimum >voting eligibility period for new Members to 90 >days (Section 3.4.3). Such an adjustment should >allow opportunity for countervailing interests >to form, preventing the flooding of new members¹ >right before an election with the specific >purpose of winning it, without any actual >engagement of such members in the discussions >and activities pertaining to the Stakeholders >Group. > >The current constituency-based model actually >aggravates problems of capture because it >potentially institutionalizes special interests. >Once a constituency has formed and been >allocated seats, there is no reasonable >mechanism to remove a constituency¹s >representatives from the Council, no matter how >the broader membership base may change. We >partially address this concern by now requiring >final approval of Constituencies by the ICANN >Board (Section 2.3.1). > >Dealing with the demand for diversity in representation on the GNSO Council: > >Attempting to categorize individuals and >organizations according to constituencies is >inimical to growing diverse participation in the >stakeholder group. A constituency-based model of >allocating seats is neither flexible nor >adaptable to a growing noncommercial membership. > >In this regard, the discussions in which we >engaged during the Mexico meeting featured a >wide range of comments on the issue of >representation, and providing adequate solutions >for a long-term perspective, as well as creating >complex voting methods that would end up >decreasing the broader representation we seek. > >One approach suggested that an interim system in >which each Constituency would be granted an >automatic seat at the GNSO Council could be >created as long as no more than six >Constituencies exist within the NCSG structure. >This suggestion not only fails to provide a >long-term solution for the issue, it also >creates artificial incentives for the formation >of groups that have little concern for the wider >range of the membership who the NCSG Council >must serve. > >The outcome of an interim decision like that >would encourage the election of NCSG Councilors >who have little or no incentive to reach out to >other views and constituencies that naturally >constitute the non-commercial interest in ICANN. > >The other proposal ties up non-commercial energy >and resources with in-fighting between competing >constituencies and dispute mechanisms. It >presents complex systems for voting and/or for >the allocation of members inside the specter of >six forced Constituencies. And its voting >mechanism seems to create a difficult method for >measuring the will of the members that integrate >the NCSG. > >There have been even some suggestions for >fragmented voting. We deem that no other system >is simpler and direct than allowing each member >to vote and that representation results from the >election of the ones to whom the majority of >votes has been casted. > >In short, the other NCSG proposal allocates GNSO >Council seats by constituencies competing with >one another, while our proposal allocates >Council seats via constituencies cooperating >with one another to find a consensus. > >The recently submitted charters of the >Registries and Registrars provide for GNSO >Councilors to be elected by Stakeholder >Group-wide membership rather than individual >constituencies. In this matter, each of these >charters (ours, the Registries, and the >Registrars) seem to present the same solution >for the issue of representation. > >The reason for this in the non-commercial >stakeholder group is simple: There are no >concentrated benefits for noncommercial >participants to counter their costs of >participating in a global policy making >institution. A simple solution to this is to >lower structural barriers to participation, as >the NCSG charter does by providing for direct >representation and easy participation within >constituencies. > >Our proposed NCSG Charter tackles the issue of >representation, avoids interim suggestions, and >puts forth a system that allows the broadest and >most democratic representation of noncommercial >interests. > >Conclusion > >Although it has transformed significantly along >the way, our proposal is not new. We have been >working on this charter since June of 2008, and >have entered into extensive consultations with >ICANN staff members, ALAC, At Large >representatives, board members, and our own >constituency members on its development. We feel >that much has been improved to guarantee >diversity in representation, to secure a space >for minority views to be heard, and to address >the concern over capture. > >We thank ICANN for allowing us an opportunity to >provide this revised proposal that reflects the >comments and suggestions received from all >interested parties who have joined in the effort >to present the best charter possible for the >NCSG structure, built upon consensus and the >principles that guide the GNSO Improvements >process. We stand ready to continue to work with >the ICANN community to improve this NCSG >proposal eve further. > >Best regards, >Robin Gross, > >Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency > > > > > > > > >Content-Type: application/octet-stream; > x-mac-type=5738424E; > x-unix-mode=0644; > x-mac-creator=4D535744; > name=ncsg_board_letter rev2.doc >Content-Disposition: attachment; > filename="ncsg_board_letter rev2.doc" > > > >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>http://www.ipjustice.org > e: <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>robin(a)ipjustice.org >

2 1

REMINDER: EURALO Call 17 March at 16:00 UTC/17:00 CET
by Heidi Ullrich March 16, 2009

March 16, 2009

Dear All, This is to remind you that the next EURALO teleconference is scheduled for Tuesday, 17 March at 16:00 UTC/17:00 CET. Please find a draft agenda and additional details at: https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi?17_march_2009 If you require dial-outs, please let us know at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marie-Helene Bouchoms ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

WG: At-Large Summit -- EURALO GA and Board re-elections
by Wolf Ludwig March 15, 2009

March 15, 2009

Sorry -- I forgot to forward the attachment prepared for and accomplished at the Mexico GA. Wolf Wolf Ludwig wrote Sun, 15 Mar 2009 17:38: >Dear all, > >I think, most of you have realised that the recent At-Large Summit in Mexico can be considered as a success and it was a great step forward for the ALAC and RALO community. More infos about the results of the first ICANN User Summit you can find in the Summit Declaration which was handed over to Paul >Twomey during the closing ceremony on Thursday 5 March 09 in Mexico: >http://www.atlarge.icann.org/files/atlarge/correspondence-05mar09-en.pdf > >In conjunction with the Summit, EURALO (and all other RALOs) held its 2nd General Assembly on Tuesday 3 March 09. The draft of the GA Meeting minutes was sent to this list by Annette already – thanks again, Annette. One important part of our 2nd GA was Agenda point 8 -- the re-election of Board members: (extract from the minutes) > >“The Board consists of 9 seats in total, one has been vacant since Paris. > >Wolf Ludwig got unanimously supported as Chair. > >Vittorio Bertolla (on the previous board), Lutz Donnerhacke, Olivier Crepin-Leblond and Dessi Greve were unanimously nominated for the Board. > >We have two candidates for the EURALO Secreatriat: Dessi, if she agrees to (in the next two days), if not we all agree that we will have Rudi as secretary.” > >Dessi has confirmed her nomination with her message on this list on Friday 6 March 09. > >With the ALSes present in Mexico we formally attained the Quorum for elections during the GA but the assembly decided to follow the same re-election procedure as we did in Paris: The candidates mentioned above were nominated, approved and recommended by the GA -- >BUT should be CONFIRMED by the EURALO list afterwards. This means, if NO OBJECTIONS are raised on this list within the next ten days from now, or until Wednesday 25 March 09 at the latest, the GA recommendations for a renewed EURALO Board are considered as confirmed and valid. > >Thanks and best regards, >Wolf > > > > >comunica-ch >phone +41 79 204 83 87 >Skype: Wolf-Ludwig >www.comunica-ch.net > >Digitale Allemd >http://blog.allmend.ch - > >EURALO >https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi?euralo_icann_at_large_europe > > >_______________________________________________ >EURO-Discuss mailing list >EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.… > >Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig www.comunica-ch.net Digitale Allemd http://blog.allmend.ch - EURALO https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi?euralo_icann_at_large_europe

1 0

At-Large Summit -- EURALO GA and Board re-elections
by Wolf Ludwig March 15, 2009

March 15, 2009

Dear all, I think, most of you have realised that the recent At-Large Summit in Mexico can be considered as a success and it was a great step forward for the ALAC and RALO community. More infos about the results of the first ICANN User Summit you can find in the Summit Declaration which was handed over to Paul Twomey during the closing ceremony on Thursday 5 March 09 in Mexico: http://www.atlarge.icann.org/files/atlarge/correspondence-05mar09-en.pdf In conjunction with the Summit, EURALO (and all other RALOs) held its 2nd General Assembly on Tuesday 3 March 09. The draft of the GA Meeting minutes was sent to this list by Annette already – thanks again, Annette. One important part of our 2nd GA was Agenda point 8 -- the re-election of Board members: (extract from the minutes) “The Board consists of 9 seats in total, one has been vacant since Paris. Wolf Ludwig got unanimously supported as Chair. Vittorio Bertolla (on the previous board), Lutz Donnerhacke, Olivier Crepin-Leblond and Dessi Greve were unanimously nominated for the Board. We have two candidates for the EURALO Secreatriat: Dessi, if she agrees to (in the next two days), if not we all agree that we will have Rudi as secretary.” Dessi has confirmed her nomination with her message on this list on Friday 6 March 09. With the ALSes present in Mexico we formally attained the Quorum for elections during the GA but the assembly decided to follow the same re-election procedure as we did in Paris: The candidates mentioned above were nominated, approved and recommended by the GA -- BUT should be CONFIRMED by the EURALO list afterwards. This means, if NO OBJECTIONS are raised on this list within the next ten days from now, or until Wednesday 25 March 09 at the latest, the GA recommendations for a renewed EURALO Board are considered as confirmed and valid. Thanks and best regards, Wolf comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig www.comunica-ch.net Digitale Allemd http://blog.allmend.ch - EURALO https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi?euralo_icann_at_large_europe

1 0

Re: [EURO-Discuss] Next EURALO conf. call
by Annette Muehlberg March 12, 2009

March 12, 2009

unfortunately i have to take part in a conference as a speaker the same time. but if there is any chance and our conference finishes earlier i will join the euralo tel con call. i am sorry to miss that call as i am excited to continue our work with even more strength after our user_s summit. all the best to all of you annette > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: "Wolf Ludwig" <wolf.ludwig(a)comunica-ch.net> > Gesendet: 11.03.09 13:05:31 > An: euro-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Betreff: [EURO-Discuss] Next EURALO conf. call > Hi all, > > this is just to announce that the next EURALO conference call is foreseen for > next Tuesday, 17 March 2009 -- > Time: 16:00 - 17:00 UTC (17:00 - 18:00 CET). > > Please reserve the date and time and I am looking forward to hear you soon on the call again. > > Thanks and regards, > Wolf > > > > > comunica-ch > phone +41 79 204 83 87 > Skype: Wolf-Ludwig > www.comunica-ch.net > > Digitale Allemd > http://blog.allmend.ch - > > EURALO > https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi?euralo_icann_at_large_europe > > > _______________________________________________ > EURO-Discuss mailing list > EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.… > > Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org > --

1 0

Next EURALO conf. call
by Wolf Ludwig March 11, 2009

March 11, 2009

Hi all, this is just to announce that the next EURALO conference call is foreseen for next Tuesday, 17 March 2009 -- Time: 16:00 - 17:00 UTC (17:00 - 18:00 CET). Please reserve the date and time and I am looking forward to hear you soon on the call again. Thanks and regards, Wolf comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig www.comunica-ch.net Digitale Allemd http://blog.allmend.ch - EURALO https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi?euralo_icann_at_large_europe

2 1

German politican joe-jobed by the ministry of interior
by Lutz Donnerhacke March 10, 2009

March 10, 2009

http://blog.fefe.de/?ts=b7511d66 German politican sued to distribute child porn. Possible reason for this joe-job: He is a strict critican of any Internet filter proposals, because it's acting just for the act, it does not fight the crime. There is an ICANN document supporting his positioon: https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/summit-wg/attachments/wg5_background_m…

3 4

Re: [EURO-Discuss] Draft Minutes EURALO Meeting
by Annette Muehlberg March 8, 2009

March 8, 2009

dear dessi, than we welcome you as our new secratary of euralo! best annette > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: "Dragoslava Greve" <dpefeva(a)isoc.bg> > Gesendet: 06.03.09 19:43:43 > An: euro-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Draft Minutes EURALO Meeting > Hello, Annette et al, > > > > > I would like to thank for the nominations and to inform you I accept the > nominations. > > > > > Wishing you all safe and comfortable flight home. > > > > > Regards, > Dessi > > > > > On Thursday 05 March 2009 01:33:59 Annette Muehlberg wrote: > > all, > > i tried to capture everything said in our EURALO Meeting, but if i missed > > something please let me know, than i will finalize it tomorrow. (also > > attached as doc) > > > > best > > annette > > > > > > > > > > > > EURALO Meeting Minutes > > Tuesday, 3 March 2009, Mexico Ciudad > > > > > > Attendees: > > Sébastien (ISOC France), Rudi (ISOC Belgium), Dessi (ISOC Bulgaria), Heike > > (Terre des Femmes), Tommi (ISOC Finland), Wolfgang (Medienstadt Leipzig), > > Lutz (FITUG), Wolf (Comunica-CH), Patrick (ISOC Luxembourg), Max (LDUN), > > Annette (network new media), Bogdan (APTI Romania), Vittorio (ISOC Italy), > > Adam (ALAC) > > > > Excused: > > Bill Drake > > > > It has been stated that those people present (including visitors) who do > > not have voting rights can take part in the discussion and make motions > > too. > > > > Annette has been appointed to write the minutes. > > > > 1. A. Approval of the GA agenda - approved > > 2. B. Approval of the GA minutes approved > > > > We were informed that after the meeting, there will be a video message for > > the closing of the summit in which some participants of the EURALO should > > take part. > > > > > > 3. Board Report of Activities: > > Some Highlights: > > - First European Dialogue on Internet Governance its organization many > > EURALO members took part. - First regional Dialogue on Internet Governance > > in Germany (exchange of informations and experiences might be useful for > > other countries activities) - ICANN Studienkreis in Helsinki > > - Meißen: Summerschool on Internet Governance - including outreach > > activities for At-Large (with a fellowship programme) - Meeting in Athens > > ENISA, discussing DNS > > - Coopeation with East-African IGF > > > > Future: > > - There will be a second EuroDIG in September 2009 in Geneva (opportunity > > for outreach activities), updates and information how to participate will > > be posted on EURALO list - There will be an ICANN Studienkreis in Barcelona > > 15/16 October 2009. One morning is a room free for a possible EURALO > > meeting) > > > > In a whole there has been considerable improvement of coordination, > > communication, organization of different EURLAO meetings. EURALO became a > > group and overcame the former difficulties of the year before. Special > > thanks to Wolf, who strongly helped the EURALO making work. We are pleased > > that we got political position papers done. But there are still problems to > > organize fast reaction to ICANN/ALAC deadlines in time. > > > > > > In Board report point 2. The question marks will be taken out reference > > is given to the todayŽs oral report. > > > > The Board report has been unanimously accepted. > > > > > > 4. At-Large Users Summit > > European Region was very much involved in setting up the summit and in > > organizing of the program. Special thanks were given to Sébastien and Wolf; > > it has also been stressed that the summit has been a joint activity by all > > the participants. > > > > Working groups and panels were very engaging, and discussions were held at > > a high level. > > > > Special thanks were expressed to staff and especially to Heidi, who worked > > with enthusiasm on supporting the user`s summit. We are sorry that Nick > > cannot be here today, as he has been sick, we wish him all the very best. > > > > Comments: > > - Recognition of the ALSes efforts, to work within a the difficult > > At-Large RALO structure. - And it is good that staff also acknowledged it, > > sharing a lot of time with us. - By new ALS members, expectation that ALAC > > has a good standing in the ICANN structure, it has been realized that it > > needs more strengthening. - Directly meeting different ALSes, networking > > was very positive > > - The first session was a little too top down (introduction Saturday > > morning like lecture hall) and staff did not focus on internet users > > issues. In future meetings, staff and board should focus on internet users > > issues this also helps activating internet users to take part in the > > At-Large work. - Request for a motion to repeat the summit there should > > be continuation of the summit - Panels and working groups were great and > > engaging > > - The get together of all ALSes/RALOs should have taken place at the > > beginning and not at the end of the summit - Strong appreciation that we > > will have a final declaration > > - Being able to participate face to face with other ALS members was very > > useful also for future (online) work. It will allow a better outcome for > > all ALSes - The preparation work by ALSes and staff was very important > > - A real hassle though, was that the staff rescheduled workshops at short > > notice, some even without noticing the moderator/speakers of a panel - It > > was extremely hard to offer workshops and coordinate with staff on this > > matter - Also criticism that ALSes could have done more in preparing the > > summit - Criticism that background papers have not been translated > > - For whole editing of final document a working computer with a printer > > should be available and should be supported by staff - Huge step in the > > right direction after we went so far backwards after the year 2000. > > Continuation of this should be organized, as a general summit every 3 > > years or so, but in between there could be regional user meetings connected > > to an ICANN meeting. - Summit helped restoring the belief that the whole > > At-Large structure could make sense - In preparing the summit (we would not > > have needed a second survey, but rather focus on setting up workshops in > > time and do not put so much pressure on speakers who got the confirmation > > of their workshop just a few days before the summit. > > > > > > Statement: We need to explore how to make another ALAC summit like the one > > in Mexico possible. These face-to-face meetings are extremely useful and > > essential in building the relationships and trust to start meaningfull > > (online) work. EURALO supports a continuation of internet users interest > > focused summits. We need more information in more digestable formats for > > ALSes. But it also needs a well organized information flow from the ALSes > > to the internet users also explaining how they can get involved in a > > transparent and accountable way. > > > > Break > > > > Welcome of Markus Kummer, excecutive secretary of the IGF, at the EURALO > > Meeting! IGF a multistakeholder platform on equal footing. The model of a > > multistakeholder dialogue is very successfull. EuroDIG is one important > > initiative for the IGF. Markus gives an overview on IGF issues. General > > discussion. Deadline 15th of April for IGF workshop proposals! > > > > 5. Briefing on ICANNŽs Contractual Compliance Program by David A. Giza (see > > power point presentation) > > > > Criticism, that speech has not been addressed to the audience, budget > > increase of 30% is outrageous. Talking about euralo taking part in a > > meeting on contractual compliance program, you must make sure, that they > > will get the money for travel and stay and will be able to have a EURALO > > meeting. Talking about the use of the word ICANN, ICANN is not staff, but > > the community. We have to clarify who is serving whom and staff grows and > > grows and grows We are very thankfull that you offer more transparency. > > One important issue for us is the staff activities in the last mile of > > decision making processes. > > > > How do you study the compliance issue in relation to national legislation? > > What about, instead of hiring an American law firm to hire a German or > > British or law firm? David welcomes EURALO to get in touch with him on > > different issues of interest. Accuracy has never been such an important > > issue There is an implicit deal between ICANN and the European Internet > > community that ICANN will not be serious on Whois accuracy compliance with > > European registrants because the current Whois policies do not comply with > > European privacy laws. Be careful that if you start to apply compliance on > > Whois seriously, there will be a major political uproar in Europe. > > > > 6. Postponed > > > > 7. EURALO Work Programme > > Strong critizism of ICANNŽs non transparent budget allocation policies and > > balancing procedures. > > > > Drafts are approved with two additions (in point 2 and an extra point 4, > > which has been written down by Wolf) > > > > +++ > > ALAC chair came in and was welcomed: Public comment period on At-Large > > Summit ALAC gives advice to the Board inputs by ALSes are needed > > > > They handed in the proposed Framework for FY10 Operating Plan and Budget > > Fiscal Year Ending 30 June 2010 It could be put under item 9. Global > > Engagement and Increased International Participation > > > > Huge problem with the travel support for 2 ALAC members, whose support may > > disappear. > > > > Travel costs for all AlAC members have to be guaranteed. > > In the Operational Plan ALAC is not integrated at all which is showing > > that the whole Board attendance at the user summit is just a lip service! > > Wolfgang, Lutz and Vittorio will finalize a statement which can be > > integrated in the final statement by the usersŽ summit. > > > > > > Elections: > > 9 seats, one has been vacant since Paris. > > > > Wolf got unanimously supported as chair. > > Vittorio, Lutz, Olivier and Dessi were unanimously nominated for the Board. > > > > We have two candidates for secretary: Dessi, if she agrees to (in the next > > two days), if not we all agree that we will have Rudi as secretary. > > > > A EURALO secretariat should be established with a small budget. > > > > > > 9. Postponed > > > > 10. Postponed (not necessary now) > > > > 11. No further comments > > > > 12. The meeting adjourned. > > > > _______________________________________________ > EURO-Discuss mailing list > EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.… > > Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org --

1 0