Done, so now Avri has it on both lists. BD On Jan 20, 2009, at 6:42 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > 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] > > > *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland [log in to unmask] New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks, http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj ***********************************************************