[gnso-consensus-wg] Exchange on scope of GNSO WG with Roberto Gaetano

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 21:36:29 -0400
> To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Clarification
> Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Robert Hoggarth 
> <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>
> Roberto, If I understood correctly, the Board adopted all of the BGC 
> report other than structure.
> Do you view the "definition" of the Non-commercial stakeholder 
> group, that is a group of constituencies representing non-commercial 
> REGISTRANTS, as being in the adopted adopted part, or within the 
> scope of the Working Group?
> Alan

> Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 09:18:05 +0200
> From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: Clarification
> To: 'Alan Greenberg' <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: 'Cheryl Langdon-Orr' <cheryl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>  'Robert Hoggarth' <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> The idea of the working group was to make the distinction between
> registrants, who would qualify to be in the stakeholder group, and users
> (not registrants), that would be in the scope of ALAC but not in the GNSO.
> This was done mainly trying to design a different role for the two parts,
> the ALAC as Advisory Committee to the Board on general Internet issues, and
> the stakeholder group of registrants, having a role as counterpart of the
> suppliers. Ideally, the broader role of "the interest of the larger
> community" could be played by the NomCom appointees.
> However, I believe that if a consensus proposal comes up that has a
> different approach, it will be accepted by the Board.
> So, my advice would be not to impose yourself too strict limits, if a
> consensus proposal can be crafted.
> Be only aware that if the GNSO stakeholder group will end up in having the
> same scope as ALAC, we might unnecessarily expose ALAC itself to a risk,
> considering that the ALAC review is ongoing.
>
> Cheers,
> Roberto

> Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:14:09 -0400
> To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: Clarification
> Cc: 'Cheryl Langdon-Orr' <cheryl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 'Robert Hoggarth' 
> <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>
> Not at all sure I follow your logic. Registries having a place on 
> the GNSO does not preclude them being well represented on the SSAC - 
> another Advisory Committee to the Board. The two bodies have a 
> widely different scope and responsibility, and their presence on 
> both (in my mind) strengthens ICANN.
> A GNSO stakeholder group by definition can only be involved in GTLD 
> policy issues. A far smaller scope the ICANN-wide role that ALAC 
> should be playing. But users are implicitly impacted by GTLD 
> policies and I think it is reasonable for their representatives (not 
> ALAC though) to have a role formulating them. This *might* be a 
> reason to rethink whether there needs to be an ALAC Liaison in that 
> future world, but as it is a non-voting role, it is less urgent an issue.
> Alan