This is a good sign, it looks like staff is backing away from trying to dictate a new NCSG structure, but we still have a long ways to go, as there are many misunderstandings about the transition that serve as barriers to progress. I also received a message from Roberto Gaetano, I am not sure whether it is intended to be confidential but I will send it to this list if I can. > -----Original Message----- > From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC- > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 4:36 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] ENC: [council] Board Resolution on individual > users > > Dear NCUCers: I am forwarding an email from Denise Michel that we have > just received at the GNSO list. It addresses some of the debates we are > having on the recent board resolution regarding the role of individual > users. > > Best, > Carlos > > -----Mensagem original----- > De: [log in to unmask] em nome de Denise Michel > Enviada: ter 20/1/2009 03:20 > Para: [log in to unmask]; liaison6c > Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Alan Greenberg; Janis Karklins; Bertrand de La > Chapelle > Assunto: [council] Board Resolution on individual users > > Dear Councilors and other interested parties: > > There has been some community discussion over the past weeks regarding the > 11 December Board > Resolution<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report- > 11dec08.htm>seeking > a recommendation on how to incorporate the legitimate interests of > individual Internet users in the GNSO in constructive yet non-duplicative > ways. I would like to try to clarify the context of that resolution and > clear up any misperceptions about its intent. > > This particular Resolution is the latest step on the part of the Board to > resolve a fundamental strategic issue for the organization, that is, the > appropriate role and representation of individual (commercial and > non-commercial) Internet users in ICANN, and specifically within the GNSO. > Its intent is to garner a recommendation from the interested community to > assist the Board in resolving a recommendation made to the Board by the > Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring > (WG-GCR<http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/restructure-working-group- > en.htm>) > that the composition of the non-contracted party voting house of the GNSO > Council should > > ".be open to membership of all interested parties . that use or provide > services for the Internet, . and should explicitly not be restricted to > domain registrants as recommended by the BGC." > > Because ongoing independent review > proceedings<http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/>of other ICANN structures > have suggested different representational > approaches, I think the Board wanted to ensure ample input and advice was > received before resolving the matter. The full context and description of > this issue was contained in the November Public Comment > Forum<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#gnso-users>request for > input (see background materials, comments filed, and Staff > summary of those contributions). > > The 11 December Resolution is an effort to help the Board identify a > strategic solution that balances ALAC/At-Large and GNSO opportunities for > all user and registrant stakeholders. In addition to the previous public > comments, the Board hoped that the Resolution would spur additional > community dialogue and agreement between interested parties. Given that > the > original WG-GCR recommendation was a consensus position supported by > representatives from all the GNSO constituencies as well as GAC, ALAC and > Nominating Committee participants, and that the Board decision on this > matter could have broad impact, the Board did not mandate any particular > methodology regarding the form that dialogue would take and the Resolution > was drafted to offer flexibility in that regard. The Resolution also > recognizes that this matter has particularly important (and time > sensitive) > implications for creation of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG). > > In view of various community comments since the Resolution was published, > it > is important to emphasize that it is not intended to be a referendum on > the > different approaches that have been advanced by groups working on proposed > NCSG charters. Staff has been corresponding with and providing assistance > to participants about their efforts to produce draft NCSG charters that > will > ultimately be submitted to the Board. There appear to remain a few > fundamental differences of opinion about the interpretation of the Board > Governance Committee (BGC) Working Group > recommendations<http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso- > improvements-report-03feb08.pdf>, > endorsed by the Board, particularly regarding the continued primacy of the > constituency structure outlined in the ICANN By-laws. Proposed charters > are > not intended to be within the scope of the 11 December Resolution. When > community members formally submit to the Board one or more > petitions/charters for NCSG formation (and other Stakeholder Group > charters), those efforts will be publicly posted for comment by all > members > of the community and will subsequently be evaluated by the Board. > > As directed by the Board at its 1 October 2008 > meeting<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-01oct08.htm>, > it is Staff's obligation to work with the community to encourage new > participants, facilitate the creation of new constituencies, and support > the > development of four new Stakeholder Groups. We remain committed to that > process and stand ready to assist members of the community. Please > contact me > and the Policy Staff <[log in to unmask]> if you need assistance or > would like to discuss these matters. > > > Regards, > > Denise Michel > ICANN Vice President > Policy Development