Reply from Chuck below. Begin forwarded message: > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[log in to unmask]> > Date: January 19, 2009 6:57:04 AM PST > To: "Robin Gross" <[log in to unmask]>, "Council GNSO" > <[log in to unmask]> > Cc: <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: RE: [council] commercial and contractual constituencies > meddling in structure of noncommercial group is unacceptable > > Thanks for the reply Robin. I guess I interpreted the Board motion > much more narrowly, although I can see that how the wording could > easily imply more than I concluded. I assumed that the motion was > mainly focused on the issue of whether individual users should be a > part of the GNSO and the ALAC or just the ALAC because that is one > area where the Board has not finalized its recommendations. > > I am not sure what the intent was with regard to the wording of the > Board motion. It seems to me that it would be good to get > clarification from Staff on this. > > I do believe that each of us as existing constituencies, new > constituencies and as future stakeholder groups will be evaluated > by the Board against the recommendations that they have approved. > I expect that the RyC request for renewal and the RySG proposed > charter will be evaluated by the Board regarding how we measure up > against the overall package of Board approved GNSO improvement > recommendations; to the extent that we don't measure up well, I > suspect that they will come back to us for changes or > clarifications. But I don't see this being the place for Council > involvement with regard to specific constituencies or SGs. > > Chuck > > > > From: Robin Gross [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 3:57 PM > To: Council GNSO; Gomes, Chuck > Cc: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [council] commercial and contractual constituencies > meddling in structure of noncommercial group is unacceptable > > Thanks, Chuck, for your very reasonable response to our concerns on > this matter. > > Your stated position – that Stakeholder Groups themselves should > play a leading role in defining their structure – is the same as > ours. You ask, “What gives [us] the impression that the NCSG will > be defined by commercial users and contracting parties?” The > answer, unfortunately, is the Board resolution of Dec. 12 (and > below) and Avri’s proposed response to it. This calls for the NCSG > to be defined by the entire GNSO and ALAC – indeed, it does not > even mention existing members of NCUC as participants in the process. > > We are convinced that this is some kind of a mistake by the Board > and that it did not really know what it was doing when it passed > that resolution. And we have some private communications with > Board members that confirm that – it was introduced by staff at the > end of a long meeting concerned with gTLDs and was not discussed or > debated. However, the resolution is there and concerns us. > > If you can join us in deferring the formation of this group and > resdponding to the Board with some questions about the > appropriateness of that resolution we would greatly appreciate it. > > Thank you, > Robin > > > 8. Role of Individual Users in GNSO – Briefing and Action > > Approved Resolution > > Whereas, the Board has received varying recommendations on > registrant and user involvement in the GNSO, and the issue of how > to incorporate the legitimate interests of individual Internet > users in constructive yet non-duplicative ways remains an open > issue that affects GNSO restructuring. > > Resolved, (2008-12-11-02) the Board requests that members of the > GNSO community work with members of the ALAC/At-Large community and > representatives of potential new "non-commercial" constituencies to > jointly develop a recommendation for the composition and > organizational structure of a Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group that > does not duplicate the ALAC and its supporting structures, yet > ensures that the gTLD interests of individual Internet users (along > with the broader non-commercial community) are effectively > represented within the GNSO. This recommendation should be > submitted no later than 24 January 2009 for consideration by the > Board. > > > > On Jan 17, 2009, at 5:34 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > >> Robin, >> >> Please see my responses below. >> >> Chuck >> >> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:owner- >> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robin Gross >> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 4:58 PM >> To: Council GNSO >> Cc: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: [council] commercial and contractual constituencies >> meddling in structure of noncommercial group is unacceptable >> >> Don't think I can post to the GNSO Council list, so will an NCUC >> Councilor please pass along this message. Thank you! Robin >> >> ---- >> >> Dear GNSO Councilors: >> >> It is completely unacceptable for the structure of the new NCSG to >> be defined and shaped by commercial users and contracting >> parties. Noncommercial stakeholders can and will define their own >> structure suitable to themselves and not be manipulated by other >> stakeholder groups who might seek to undermine its effectiveness. >> It is naïve and disingenuous to pretend that the different SGs >> don't have competing and often conflicting interests. >> [Gomes, Chuck] What gives you the impression that the NCSG will be >> defined by commercial users and contracting parties? >> >> We note that no one has invited NCUC or ALAC to participate in >> defining a new structure for the Commercial SG, or the Registrar >> and Registry SGs. This kind of discrimination among SGs will >> discourage additional noncommercial entities from participating in >> ICANN's GNSO. >> [Gomes, Chuck] What discrimination? >> >> Please note that NCUC has already proposed a structure for the >> NCSG that has the overwhelming support of the noncommercial >> stakeholders currently active in ICANN. We have conveyed it to At >> Large, discussed its principles in public meetings in Cairo, and >> are in conversations with staff about it now. While we welcome >> efforts to amend it from new constituency proponents and relevant >> members of At Large, that proposal will serve as the basis for any >> NCSG proposals that go to the Board. >> >> We have no objection in principle to working with At large members >> and RALOs in this process, and as noted before we have already >> tried to include them in our ongoing process. But we also note >> that individual or organizational At Large members may also be >> commercial users and thus ineligible to join a future >> noncommercial SG, and thus have no legitimate role to play in the >> definition of our structure. >> >> The Board Governance Committee has made it clear on numerous >> occasions that Stakeholder Groups themselves should play a leading >> role in defining their structure. Explicit statements to that >> effect have been made by Roberto Gaetano, former Board members and >> BGC member Susan Crawford, and Harald Alvestrand. This is, quite >> obviously, the right approach. >> [Gomes, Chuck] Agreed. I am just not clear on why you think it >> would be different than this. My understanding is that each >> Constituency Renewal request and Stakeholder Group Charter will be >> developed by the applicable constituencies and Stakeholder Group >> members and submitted to the Board for Board approval, not to the >> GNSO for GNSO approval. And the Board will judge each renewal >> request and SG Charter against the recommendations that they >> approved for GNSO improvement. >> >> Best, >> Robin Gross >> Chair of Non-Commercial Users Constituency >> >> >> IP JUSTICE >> Robin Gross, Executive Director >> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask] >> >> >> > > > > > 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: [log in to unmask] > > > 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: [log in to unmask]