I can't post to the GNSO list, so I request a NCUC councilor forward this important clarification on the GNSO list. > We have heard from the NCUC chair, council reps and others that the > only > appropriate interested GNSO parties are from the NCUC. Not true. We said "noncommercial stakeholders" - we did not say "NCUC". Important distinction. Thanks, Robin PS: The link to entire GNSO Council mailing list archive seems to be "forbidden"???? http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/ > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> > Date: 2009/1/20 > Subject: [council] Re: Board Resolution on individual users > To: GNSO Council <[log in to unmask]> > Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <[log in to unmask]>, Janis Karklins > <[log in to unmask]>, Bertrand de La Chapelle > <[log in to unmask]> > > > > Hi, > > To be honest in reading this, I still don't know if the so called > 'all-GNSO' (1 rep from each SG or constituency + observer from GAC) > approach I suggested, with the addition of the representatives of the > potential new constituencies is the right answer. It seems to > indicate > that if that is what the council wanted to do, that would be ok. It > also seems to indicate that if it was only NCUC participants, that > would > be ok too or some solution in between (e.g. 3 NCUC and 1 from each of > the other houses ...). If I read correctly it also would allow a > solution that opened it up to any 'interested parties' to self > identify > and participate in the dialogue. The only sine qua non is that it > include representatives of those groups wanting to form constituencies > and ALAC. > > We have heard from the NCUC chair, council reps and others that the > only > appropriate interested GNSO parties are from the NCUC. I would > like to > hear from some of the rest of the councilors to determine what path we > should take. > > As the deadline is soon, I think that ALAC is starting along the > path as > was suggested earlier while waiting for the GNSO Council to decide > what > it wants to do. They are very concerned with having at least some > answer - at least methodology and a request for more time - by the > deadline. > > thanks > > a. > > On Mon, 2009-01-19 at 21:20 -0800, Denise Michel wrote: > > Dear Councilors and other interested parties: > > > > There has been some community discussion over the past weeks > regarding > > the 11 December Board Resolution 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) 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 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 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, > 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, 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 if you need assistance or > would > > like to discuss these matters. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Denise Michel > > ICANN Vice President > > Policy Development > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > [log in to unmask] > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > [log in to unmask] > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/ncuc-exec 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]