RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Definition of Non-Commercial

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I also agree that it seems to make sense to incorporate users and
registrants but with the assumption that they are able to be
incorporated in an effective and most importantly representative way
that avoids capture by a small group of people (per RyC principle 3
previously distributed).  The ALAC now has a structure in place that may
facilitate this but it still needs to be tested.  The NCUC has proposed
opening up the noncommercial side but it appears to be little beyond the
idea stage.  These are positive signs but I think we have to ask the
following question: At what point does it make sense to expand voting
participation?  Should it be done now when there is a huge void and tons
of work to do or should some milestones be set when it happens?

With the changes anticipated in all our constituencies we all
undoubtedly will face challenges of representation so I recognize that
the noncommercial side is not alone in this issue.  We will all have to
develop plans for expansion of our membership to better incorporate our
broader communities.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> Metalitz, Steven
> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 9:16 AM
> To: Alan Greenberg; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Definition of Non-Commercial
> 
> 
> I agree with Alan that whatever stakeholder groups are formed 
> should encompass users as well as registrants, both on the 
> non-commercial and the commercial side.  
> 
> Steve  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 3:30 PM
> To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-consensus-wg] Definition of Non-Commercial
> 
> 
> The BGC proposal defines the non-commercial stakeholders 
> group as constituencies of Non-commercial registrants.
> 
> I propose that the definition of non-commercial be widened 
> from that in the BGC proposal to include non-commercial users as well.
> 
> The rationale is simple. Looking at just the web, businesses 
> use it to deliver products and services to users. Without 
> users, there would be far less incentive for businesses to 
> use the Internet, or for registrants to register names with 
> registrars/registries. Users are greatly impacted by policies 
> recommended by the GNSO and their representatives should be 
> able to participate in setting such policies at all levels.
> 
> I am not proposing HOW we create such a constituency or 
> constituencies at this point, just that the GNSO structure be 
> receptive to them if and when they should form. Other 
> provisions in the BGC proposal already address the difficulty 
> in forming new constituencies and state that ICANN will need 
> to work to achieve this end.
> 
> I am explicitly not saying what role that ALAC might or might 
> not play in creating such constituencies. (I do have some 
> expectations in this regard, but I am not sure they are 
> relevant here.)
> 
> Under separate cover, I am forwarding the exchange I had with 
> Roberto about the propriety of our expanding the definition 
> of "non-commercial", a term defined in the part of the BGC 
> proposal already adopted by the Board. Note that Roberto 
> implies that he believes that users needs be represented on 
> Council, but that this is a role of the NomCom appointees to 
> the GNSO. Although I strongly support the practice of having 
> voting NomCom appointed members of the GNSO, I hardly think 
> that we can expect them to solely espouse user needs on 
> Council. By the very definition, they should take a broader 
> and more disparate view of things.
> 
> Alan
> 
> 
> 
> 
>