RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Background on fundamental pre-conditions

["Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>]

IPC's views on this issue are laid out in the public comment we filed April 15, 
see http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters/msg00015.html.  

Steve Metalitz 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 8:41 AM
To: Philip Sheppard; Gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Background on fundamental pre-conditions


Philip, this is a quite remarkable intervention. 

The document you reference was a PROPOSAL (the famous 6-6-6 proposal) that 
ALAC, BC and NCUC agreed to make for GNSO reform prior to the July Working 
Group that came up with the bicameral idea. 

This proposal was not agreed to by the consensus working group. It was not 
agreed to by the Board. It was not agreed to by the Registries and Registrars. 
It was taken off the table long ago. It has no standing in these discussions, 
and hasn't for nearly a year. 

For you to put forward this document now as evidence of a commitment that is 
required to implement the GNSO Council restructuring shows:
a) how utterly baseless your original claim was, and 
b) raises integrity issues.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-
> dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 8:22 AM
> To: Gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-restruc-dt] Background on fundamental pre-conditions
> 
> 
> 
> "Milton asked:
> Philip:Please inform this group of where this commitment (about NCUC
> membership expansion)
> is articulated."
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Background note on current proposed structure of the GNSO
> 
> The agreement by commercial users to transfer 3 commercial seats to non-
> commercial users (in
> the existing reform proposal) has its origin in a joint paper from the
> ALAC, NCUC, BC, IPC,
> and ISPs. That paper was called:
> "Joint Proposal from the User Community for GNSO Council structural change
> April 2008".
> It was negotiated inter alia by Milton Mueller on behalf of NCUC.
> 
> In the INTRODUCTION we find:
> "The role of individuals and the At-Large is inappropriately curtailed in
> the governance
> committee proposal. Since ALAC is critical to ICANN's external perception
> this needs to be
> clarified".
> 
> In the BODY we find:
> "Non-commercial interest group The Board governance committee recognized
> that it "must go
> far beyond the membership of the current Non-Commercial Users
> Constituency." ICANN has
> invested substantially in developing an At-large structure to represent
> users. That
> investment should be leveraged".
> 
> IN the ANNEX we find:
> "Non-Commercial Interest group. Principles
> §     The group should be an umbrella organization based on the non-
> commercial
> constituency and incorporating At Large Structures, public-interest
> oriented individuals and
> individuals drawn from the Regional At-Large Organisations with an updated
> program and
> membership scope. The exact details of this can be determined after the
> Board's agreement to
> the concept in principle.
> §     At-Large has interests beyond GNSO policy so it is NOT intended to
> formally merge
> the At Large Advisory Committee, ALAC, with this group. Indeed no decision
> regarding GNSO
> Council restructuring should prejudice the role of any ICANN-wide users'
> entity".
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> It is this agreement to which the BC, IPC and ISPs refer when we question
> whether this
> change in the NCUC has occurred.
> It may have done. It may be a communication issue.
> But:
> a) we nor the Board have seen the evidence.
> b) it would be more indicative of change if the voices that told us there
> has been change
> were today (May 2009) not the same ones as then (April 2008).
> 
> 
> 
> 
>