GNSO Improvements - ALAC and Joint Statements - comments requested
Dear All: As you may recall, an Ad-Hoc Working Group on GNSO Improvements, with representatives of each RALO, has been working on a response to the public consultation on the Board Governance Committee¹s proposals for improvements to the GNSO. As a part of that work, the working group was also engaged in negotiations with various communities within the GNSO Community, including the Commercial and Business Users, Intellectual Property, Internet Service and Connectino Providers, and Non-Commercial Users Constituencies. The Joint Statement that resulted from those discussions was posted to the public comment forum today, and is accessible at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/msg00012.html. The Working Group also produced a draft statement for transmission to the Board of Directors by the ALAC in its role as an Advisory Committee. That document was subject to a community comment period, and the working group incorporated those comments received however, the working group took the decision that it would be better to wait to finalise the text until after the Joint Statement was finished, so that the At-Large community could take one final look at the two statements, make any comments, and if necessary those comments could then be dealt with in the ALAC¹s individual statement. The ALAC also discussed the progress on this issue at its meeting earlier this month. The Staff have been asked to post a version of the ALAC statement, as well as the Joint Statement, so that comments can be taken. It is envisaged that we will be able to take comments for a few days as the statement can be transmitted to the board following the end of the public comment period on the GNSO Improvements draft, which finishes on the 24th of April. You may access both the draft ALAC Statement, and the Joint Statement, from this URL. Please do use the comment button to provide any comments you care to make. https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?al_alac_gnim_wg_01_01_alac_statemen t_on_gnso_improvements -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff@atlarge.icann.org
The Ad-Hoc GNSO Improvements Statement Drafting Group is composed of: C Aguirre (LACRALO) A Greenberg (NARALO) C Langdon-Orr (APRALO/ALAC Chair), V Cretu (EURALO) M El Bashir (AFRALO), and V Scartezini (LACRALO/Vice Chair) These are the people that Staff tells us secretly negotiated a deal with the BC, IPC, ISP and NCUC constituencies. ... and this WG, of course, has no public archives. Although we were promised at the ALAC Monthly teleconference that a community organizational model would be presented for public discussion to the At-Large community on 15 April or 16 April, we were never shown that model; it remained a secret until the "Joint Statement" was posted this morning. Other groups honored a commitment to their members and made the model available for constituency discussion as early as late March (IPC), April 10 (BC), April 15 (ISP). The ALAC WG members apparently had no such regard for their own community. Making matters worse, the position that they agreed to is a far cry from the Draft Statement that the WG circulated on 21 March. -- What happened to their initial focus on individual internet users as a distinct voting bloc? -- What happened to their proposal regarding domain name resellers? -- What happened to the belief that "At-Large is in the process of being reviewed and to suggest any changes to the structure of the community as it presently exists could prejudice the outcome of the review"? -- What happened to the sentiment that "We do not have in mind a particular voting structure for involvement of the Internet endusers voice, but are open to any proposal that provides for participation on an equitable basis"? What happened to all the public comments that were sent through on the topic of GNSO Improvements? Were any of them even read by WG members? I recall JFC's proposal regarding consumer organizations and Roberto Gaetano's push for participation of the individual registrants in the GNSO. I recall Ross Rader arguing against the arbitrary commercial/non-commercial distinction. I recall Beau Brendler passionately arguing with Roberto about the need to extend representation to all users. We see none of that in the Joint Statement. Call me a cynic, but I don't believe for a moment that WG members were actively involved in sustained negotiations with the other constituencies... the members of this WG can't even manage a sustained discussion on this list, let alone between four different constituencies. This event strikes me as an action taken independently and arrogantly by the ALAC Chair. But this is just speculation on my part, and like Brett I'm waiting to hear the truth of this matter from those that collaborated on the Joint Statement. I would love to know why our public input into this process has thus far been ignored or cast aside by the ALAC leadership. I would like to know why we weren't privy to the documentary text at the same time as other constituencies. I would like to know if this is how the ALAC intends to behave in the future. I would like to know when the ALAC will begin respecting the need for a comment period of suitable length. Final comments to the ICANN Board Governance Committee are due on Friday. There has already been one formal extension to the comment period, and there has been no formal request for a further extension of time. The ALAC shouldn't be putting its ALSs in this one-day-to-prepare-comments-position. This is the epitome of irresponsible behavior. --- At-Large Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org> wrote:
Dear All:
As you may recall, an Ad-Hoc Working Group on GNSO Improvements, with representatives of each RALO, has been working on a response
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Thank you for posting this information and particularly outlining the processes that have gone on, in the development of these two related (in fact intertwined) documents... Brett, the document/draft development process the ALAC used for this Joint Statement has (at least to some extent) been outlined by Nick's release of documents and call for comment message, but I am going to take the liberty of expanding on several matters here in this somewhat lengthy missive... And I sincerely hope that you will see there was no intent to keep discussions on 'the internal mailing list' -> yes some preemptive ones occurred (see below) but I felt that this only served to better inform the RALO representatives on that list about the background /development of this foreshadowed document and allowed them to be better prepared to respond with comments when it was finalized and released, particularly when we were aware of the very tight time line we were working to... *On the matter of timelines* however please note that the I have requested Nick to explore what small extension we might be able to get on the public comment period because of the unexpectedly late arrival of the final Joint Statement. I trust that all who have comments to make regarding the Joint Statement will use the mechanisms for comment that have been set up for wide community input via the Wiki... As foreshadowed in previous messages/Committee/ WG discussions that occurred when the ALAC statement was posted for initial community review last month, The Joint Statement is going to act as an appendix to our earlier and reviewed ALAC Statement on GNSO Improvements document, to address the matters of a proposed GNSO structure and voting alternative from a User perspective, that were specifically NOT included in that as we were working in parallel on the Joint Statement at the time... Any comments or issues with the Joint Statement however can be incorporated into our ALAC Statement at this stage, (via the use of the Wiki page Comments button please) so in effect the community is getting an additional opportunity for comment and review now that they have a chance to look at the content and specifics of the Joint Statement ... Please note that comments received in the review of the ALAC statement (which did not focus on the matters of proposed alternate structure and voting- as that was the focus of the Joint Statement) regarding desires and models for structure *were* to the best of the RALO representatives in the ALAC GNSO Improvements WG imbedded into the Joint Statement wherever possible and the use of language such as User rather than Registrant etc., is reflective of this as an example... There has been some recent discussion / disappointment diatribes posted to the Internal and NARALO lists regarding the Joint Statement in terms of both process of its development and its content and validity... This was a result of Beau Brendler raising in the internal list some language change questions (also followed up then by Wendy) between versions of the developing Joint Statement sourced from list run by other constituencies (ipconstituency list is the actual example) earlier this week... Specifically to the matter of 'had the language changes diminished the intention to ensure Consumer Organisations and Universities a mechanism to have their voices heard'? in the version 3 language... I took the opportunity then, to reply to the internal list with the following text...<sent Wed 4/23/2008 8:54AM (aest)> " Hi Beau (and now Wendy).... The draft you are referring to is a v3 of a document that the v4 should have been released to me and the others working on the joint user statement, several hours ago, but which I've yet to receive... and that version has a few additional changes that have been agreed to... But your raising of these points is however very timely, as the Final should be out to us all in short order... Firstly to the history and rational behind the specific language shift you identify... As anyone who has ever worked on a collaborative document with a group of similarly intended but specifically different (in term of the variety of existing (or otherwise) representational history and interests in terms of their particular constituencies) drafters acting in committee (who themselves are being advised by subcommittee) will realize significant language change (wordsmithing) happens between versions... In this case it was the NCUC (who represent the universities) who suggested the change and the rest of us agreed that we needed to clearly partition the role of ALAC as an AC from the important intent of At-Large (inclusive of all users registrants or otherwise) as an equitable part of a reformed GNSO with regard to both the structure of such a body AND with regards to voting... This is the intent of the current wording and in no way indicates a downgrading or shift away from the importance of Consumer Groups and Universities as input nodes to this, rather it does not specifically list them over any other class or nomenclature of User (registrant or non Registrant) and indeed as Consumer Groups are just as likely to be an ALS and involved in RALO activities as a University is to have 'membership' of the NCUC; the use of the following text "...(the non-commercial constituency, the At Large Structures and individuals drawn from the Regional At-Large Organisations) with an updated program and membership scope..." was agreed to be more inclusive rather than exclusive language to use... And regarding the 'discussion' on the developmental drafts, the ALAC input has been specifically contributed by the GNSO Improvements WG that has representation from all RALO's and we have taken a great deal of care to encompass and consider all the At-Large comments and suggestions on this topic, both generally and specifically in response to the associated ALAC statement on GNSO improvements posted more than a month ago now which specifically does NOT refer to structure as this joint document does, but will be presented as an overarching response from the ALAC, with the Joint documentation appended by the close of the public comment period on April 25th... I hope this helps clarify the language changes, and I do trust that as promised the v4 document will be in our hands shortly... CLO" <end cut and paste> I hope that reproducing it here also helps inform this wider list audience of the processes that (as ALAC via its WG) we were/have been undertaking... I do not think it appropriate that I comment on discussions that then ran on the NARALO list per se (as I believe the autonomy of RALO debate is essential) but I would like to make clear my extreme personal disappointment that the NARALO (or at least some members thereof) feel that they were not being adequately included or represented in the development phase (pre release before the for comment period) of the Joint Statement by their representative on the ALAC GNSO Improvements WG Alan Greenberg; Particularly because Alan had made significant, greatly valued, ongoing and I might say extraordinary input into the WG activities including managing to suggest some word changes between V3 and the Final v4 document whilst in Africa and under extremely poor connectivity limitations... I further trust that the hard work put in by this NARALO ALAC representative is not being either unappreciated or ignored by his region (or interpreted that way by others) as a result of that lists deliberations... Certainly we need to note that at this stage we have no similar issues regarding the Joint Statement coming in from the other RALO's whose WG reps I should make very clear also worked in a very hard in positive and committed manner to be broadly representative of their Regions views... The Chair of NARALO has called (I believe) for an Ad-Hoc regional committee to be formed to draft an opposing document... I also hope they will place specific points into the current comment collection and collation process, via the Wiki and I assume that the outcome of this regional committee will be very specific in listing where the NARALO's views are at variance or opposition to the Joint Statement. So that the intended inclusiveness may yet be achieved, however if the At-Large Community from all regions feel that this process would be better facilitated by the ALAC perhaps organizing a topic specific conference call then please let me know and we will do our best to organize it (or whatever alternate collaborative tool is thought more effective to enhance *broad Regional input* I our limited time)... Significant effort was I can assure you made to forward the diversity of views expressed in response to the earlier ALAC statement, but naturally individual alternatives are and should be encouraged to be forwarded into the Public consultation in this topic as well... We should also take the time here to reflect on the fact that this Joint Statement is not an 'end point' of some sort of negotiation, it is meant to be a proposal of a mutually agreeable alternate structure for the Boards consideration, that results in better input and equity for Users in GNSO policy development... Even if by chance this proposal was deemed accepted outright as the "perfect design" significant detail work will still need to follow and I for one would like to see that being done in a spirit of collegial or mutually beneficial ways with the other User Constituencies, that brings from the At-Large Internet User Community a 'best fit, best practice' global approach... Finally should the desire of the ALAC be to radically alter or revisit the ALAC Statement then of course as an AC we can make take longer and make our input outside of the extension time, but it has always been my intent to fit in with the timelines now set if at all possible... CLO -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of At-Large Staff Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 8:19 AM To: At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss; Europe Discuss; LAC Discuss; Africa Discuss; Asia-Pacific Discuss Subject: [At-Large] GNSO Improvements - ALAC and Joint Statements - comments requested Dear All: As you may recall, an Ad-Hoc Working Group on GNSO Improvements, with representatives of each RALO, has been working on a response to the public consultation on the Board Governance Committee¹s proposals for improvements to the GNSO. As a part of that work, the working group was also engaged in negotiations with various communities within the GNSO Community, including the Commercial and Business Users, Intellectual Property, Internet Service and Connectino Providers, and Non-Commercial Users Constituencies. The Joint Statement that resulted from those discussions was posted to the public comment forum today, and is accessible at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/msg00012.html. The Working Group also produced a draft statement for transmission to the Board of Directors by the ALAC in its role as an Advisory Committee. That document was subject to a community comment period, and the working group incorporated those comments received however, the working group took the decision that it would be better to wait to finalise the text until after the Joint Statement was finished, so that the At-Large community could take one final look at the two statements, make any comments, and if necessary those comments could then be dealt with in the ALAC¹s individual statement. The ALAC also discussed the progress on this issue at its meeting earlier this month. The Staff have been asked to post a version of the ALAC statement, as well as the Joint Statement, so that comments can be taken. It is envisaged that we will be able to take comments for a few days as the statement can be transmitted to the board following the end of the public comment period on the GNSO Improvements draft, which finishes on the 24th of April. You may access both the draft ALAC Statement, and the Joint Statement, from this URL. Please do use the comment button to provide any comments you care to make. https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?al_alac_gnim_wg_01_01_alac_statemen t_on_gnso_improvements -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff@atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
At-Large Staff ha scritto:
Dear All:
As you may recall, an Ad-Hoc Working Group on GNSO Improvements, with representatives of each RALO, has been working on a response to the public consultation on the Board Governance Committee¹s proposals for improvements to the GNSO.
As a part of that work, the working group was also engaged in negotiations with various communities within the GNSO Community, including the Commercial and Business Users, Intellectual Property, Internet Service and Connectino Providers, and Non-Commercial Users Constituencies.
The Joint Statement that resulted from those discussions was posted to the public comment forum today, and is accessible at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/msg00012.html.
I wish I could make full comments to what I just read in this statement, but I am still a member of the GNSO Review WG and, in that role, I feel bound to recognize whatever consensus will emerge from the community and not to try to influence it too much. At the same time, there is one thing that I really can't refrain from saying: the political rationale for: - supporting an increased weight for the commercial user constituencies, that are the less diverse constituencies in ICANN, are focused on a narrow set of commercial interests from a handful of developed countries, and have been constantly opposing user interests on a number of matters; - supporting a reduced weight for the registry and registrar constituencies, that have been sympathetic with user interests on similar matters; - supporting the elimination of Nomcom appointees, that include the present Chair and that have traditionally been a strong factor in favour of breaking deadlocks and promoting the global public interest; - notwithstanding the disclaimer in the document, promoting the concept that the ALAC represents just another interest group of the GNSO and so it should perhaps, sooner or later, be demoted from the Board AC level to the SO constituency level; all of this just to get a couple of weightless voting positions in the GNSO council to be appointed by the ALAC, really escapes me. Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
participants (4)
-
At-Large Staff -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Danny Younger -
Vittorio Bertola