FYI: See emails from ICANN Board Member Bruce Tonkin below regarding this issue for further clarification and elaboration. Begin forwarded message: > From: "Bruce Tonkin" <[log in to unmask]> > Date: January 19, 2009 3:36:31 PM PST > To: "Robin Gross" <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: RE: [council] commercial and contractual constituencies > meddling in structure of noncommercial group is unacceptable > > Hello Robin, > > feel free to pass on. > > I could also paraphrase a little more broadly to say that as far as > I understand the intent is to get the various parties within an > interest in being part of the non-commercial Stakeholders group to > get together. > > These parties may come from: > > - non-commercial constituency > - ALAC > - At Large > - others planning to form new constituencies with a specific > interest within the non-commercial Stakeholders group > > I think it is also important to recognise that while participants > in the present ALAC may have an interest in participating in the > non-commercial stakeholders group, they may not mean that ALAC as a > structure would somehow become part of the non-commercial > Stakeholders group. > > > Regards, > Bruce > > > From: Robin Gross [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Tuesday, 20 January 2009 5:05 AM > To: Bruce Tonkin > Subject: Re: [council] commercial and contractual constituencies > meddling in structure of noncommercial group is unacceptable > > Thank you for the clarification, Bruce. > > I'd like to forward this response on to the NCUC list because I > think it will help in assuaging some concerns by other members of > the constituency. Would you mind if I forwarded this response to > the list? > > Thanks, > Robin > > > > On Jan 18, 2009, at 3:45 PM, Bruce Tonkin wrote: > >> Hello Robin, >> >> I don' think "members of the GNSO community" was intended to be >> the whole GNSO. If it was intended to be the whole GNSO - it >> would have just said that the GNSO work with ALAC, or the GNSO >> Council work with ALAC. >> >> It would have been more appropriately worded as "members of the >> GNSO community representing non-commercial stakeholders" >> >> Regards, >> Bruce >> >> >> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:owner- >> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robin Gross >> Sent: Monday, 19 January 2009 7:57 AM >> To: Council GNSO; Chuck Gomes >> 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] > > > 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]