<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
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: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 4:58 PM
To: Council GNSO
Cc: NCUC-DISCUSS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
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: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|