[gnso-consensus-wg] ALAC statement regarding Philip's latest proposal

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Philip has posted a new proposal for GNSO structure. Although this 
was not posted implying ALAC support, since we were part of the 
original joint proposal I think it is appropriated to comment.
To start, I will reiterate that ALAC still supports parity (that is, 
equal votes) between the commercial and non-commercial stakeholders groups.
That being said, there are several issues that we have some problems with.

- The document makes reference to "the full integration of at-large 
structures". An "At-Large Structure" is the base layer of the ICANN 
At-Large pyramid upon which the RALOs and ALAC are built. Each ALS is 
an independent organization which ultimately may choose to join a NC 
constituency, just as some ALSs are ISOC chapters, and others are 
part of other umbrella groups. But this is NOT a target of having a 
user presence in the GNSO. To be acceptable to the ALAC, the wording 
must be changed to the more general "user groups" or "user 
constituencies" and most definitely must not imply or make it easy 
for anyone to infer that we are trying to make part of the 
ALAC/At-Large organization an integral part of a GNSO constituency. 
To coin a phrase, we find "at-large structures" confusingly similar 
to terms already in use.
- The document makes reference to a "root and branch reorganization" 
of the non-commercial group. We would like more clarity in what is 
being requested. ALAC expectations are that whatever the structure, 
it will be possible for like-minded people or groups to participate 
in the Non-commercial stakeholders group, with reasonable access to 
Council seats and votes, the ability to submit what are now 
"constituency statements" to Council and working groups representing 
what they believe are the needs and points-of-view of their 
members/constituents, and to be represented on working groups and 
other policy development bodies. The term "reasonable" in the 
preceding statement will surely be difficult to define as the number 
and variety of non-commercial user groups grow, but the number of 
Council seats and votes remain constant, but our expectation is that 
this all groups within the SG will be involved in the solution to this.
- We need to make it explicitly clear that for at least the NCSG, we 
are talking about users and not just registrants. The current By-laws 
refers to "Non-Commercial Users (representing the full range of 
non-commercial entity users of the Internet)". This definition must 
be maintained, and not changed to "Non-commercial Registrants" as 
dictated by the BGC proposal.
- As we have all along, ALAC advocates the continued presence of 
voting NomCom appointees on the GNSO Council. ALAC still advocates. 
This may change over the coming years as the SG groups mature and are 
successful in outreach. But prior to that actual success, we do not 
believe it is appropriated to drop voting NomCom councillors.