(resending a couple of messages I tried to send a day or so ago, but 
got caught somewhere...)

See email below from Avri to the GNSO council.

I hope the NCUC will quickly respond to say the discussion should be 
between the NCUC members and ALAC. Hope other council members will 
have the good sense to keep out.  Think it's a very poorly worded 
motion by the board.  Would be interesting to know who proposed it, 
seconded and how it came to pass. Perhaps our council reps could ask.

Adam


http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg06146.html

[council] First thoughts on acting on BR 2008-12-11 02

Hi,


As was briefly mentioned at the last meeting, we need to do something 
about this.

Board resoluion 2008-12-11-02


"that members of the GNSO community work with members of the ALAC/At- 
Large community and representatives of potential new "non-commercial" 
constituencies to jointly develop a recommendation for the 
composition and organizational structure of a Non-Commercial 
Stakeholder Group that does not duplicate the ALAC and its supporting 
structures, yet ensures that the gTLD interests of individual 
Internet users"


The following is an idea that has been discussed between the chair of 
ALAC and myself and vetted a little with relevant staff. I understand 
she has taken the proposal to the ALAC (I thought we were going to 
talk about it some more first, but never mind) and I am now bringing 
it to the council.

Given the pressure of time, we could use a model similar to the one 
developed by the board to force the GNSO constituencies to action on 
restructuring.

I.e. Create a joint group of GNSO and ALAC representatives to spend 
30 days coming up with a suggestion.

Number of people:


 From the GNSO we could have at


Option  a. 1 per constituency + an NCA = 7
Option b. 1 from each SG + an NCA = 5


(given were we are heading with the restructuring it might be 
interesting to try that model. note this is not council members but 
constituency/SG members)

 From ALAC there should be at least one from each region = 5
If we went with the 7 person model, not sure how they would pick the other 2.

We should add a GAC observer as well.


And we could ask (i.e. volunteer) Rob to coordinate. He handled the 
last such effort very well.


As with the structuring group, they would be responsible for 
communicating with their constituencies/regional organizations/SGs 
and for coming to consensus.

The recommendation would then be subject to public review and then 
subject to approval by both the GNSO Council and ALAC using their own 
methods

This would take longer then board motion requested, but we could at 
least give them a plan and a schedule. I figure it would take minimum 
8 weeks from Time 0. If we act quickly, we could be ready for open 
discussions in Mexico City, with the comment period ending a week 
after that meeting. Allowing for a decsions shortly thereafter.

Thoughts?


Note: One possible objection is that this discussion is relevant only 
to the NCSG and not to the rest of the GNSO community and thus there 
is no role for the rest of the GNSO community or for the GNSO council 
in this process. I can certainly see the logic of his view and accept 
it if it is the predominant view in the council. I do, however, feel 
obliged to make sure we have responded to the Board motion, and hence 
the proposal and the discussion.

a.


END


At 12:39 PM -0500 1/13/09, Avri Doria wrote:
>Hi,
>
>It is not a staff proposal.
>
>It is a proposal which i was part of initiating for how to respond to:
>
>>
>>Board resoluion 2008-12-11-02
>>
>>"that members of the GNSO community work with members of the ALAC/At-
>>Large community and representatives of potential new "non-commercial"
>>constituencies to jointly develop a recommendation for the composition
>>and organizational structure of a Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group
>>that does not duplicate the ALAC and its supporting structures, yet
>>ensures that the gTLD interests of individual Internet users"
>
>
>As I indicated in my note to the council on this:
>
>>
>>Note: One possible objection is that this discussion is relevant 
>>only to the NCSG and not to the rest of the GNSO community and thus 
>>there is no role for the rest of the GNSO community or for the GNSO 
>>council in this process.    I can certainly see the logic of his 
>>view and accept it if it is the predominant view in the council.  I 
>>do, however, feel obliged to make sure we have responded to the 
>>Board motion, and hence the proposal and the discussion.
>
>I look forward to council discussion on this to determine the right 
>course of action for resolving the issues contained in the Board's 
>motion and for responding to the Board's motion.  I expect that the 
>NCUC council members will give a strong indication of the NCUC's 
>preferences in this matter.
>
>As for being on the NCUC list.  As someone who is at the same time 
>an academic and a member of several organizations that are NCUC 
>members but not an NCUC member per se, I read the list but do not 
>generally respond unless directly 'addressed'.  I am grateful I am 
>allowed to read the list as email as opposed to having to go to the 
>archive.
>
>As for my reelection;  while I do very much appreciate the 
>enthusiastic support of NCUC council members and their nomination 
>for my first two terms, just as I very much appreciate having been 
>nominated by members of the RrC for the most recent election, I try 
>to do the job as openly and fairly as I can without moderating my 
>views based on who nominated me.  That does not mean I don't blow it 
>from time to time, but when I do it is because I got it wrong and 
>not because X or Y supported my nomination.
>
>
>a.
>
>
>
>On 13 Jan 2009, at 12:14, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>>So, Avri has replied privately indicating that she is not the 
>>author of this proposal, it is a staff proposal and (here she needs 
>>to speak for herself) she believes that the structure of a NCSG may 
>>indeed be NC stakeholders' business and not the GNSO's business, so 
>>this is not as bad as I thought it was. However, we do need to take 
>>up with ICANN Staff  exactly what they are trying to do. It's very 
>>dangerous and counter productive for staff to pit different GNSO 
>>factions and constituent groups against each other and very naive 
>>(at best) for them to invite commercial constituencies to play a 
>>role in defining the governance structure of noncommercial 
>>constituencies.
>>
>>My apologies to Avri and please don't let my mistake (often it is 
>>hard to follow all this stuff accurately) divert anyone's attention 
>>from the seriousness of this issue.