[EURO-Discuss] [At-Large] GNSO Improvements - ALAC and Joint Statements - comments requested

Cheryl Langdon-Orr cheryl at hovtek.com.au
Wed Apr 23 22:14:42 EDT 2008

Thank you for posting this information and particularly outlining the
processes that have gone on, in the development of these two related (in
fact intertwined) documents... 

Brett, the document/draft development process the ALAC used for this Joint
Statement has (at least to some extent) been outlined by Nick's release of
documents and call for comment message, but I am going to take the liberty
of expanding on several matters here in this somewhat lengthy missive... And
I sincerely hope that you will see there was no intent to keep discussions
on 'the internal mailing list'  -> yes some preemptive ones occurred (see
below) but I felt that this only served to better inform the RALO
representatives on that list about the background /development of this
foreshadowed document and allowed them to be better prepared to respond with
comments  when it was finalized and released, particularly when we were
aware of the very tight time line we were working to... 

*On the matter of timelines* however please note that the I have requested
Nick to explore what small extension we might be able to get on the public
comment period because of the unexpectedly late arrival of the final Joint

I trust that all who have comments to make regarding the Joint Statement
will use the mechanisms for comment that have been set up for wide community
input via the Wiki... As foreshadowed in previous messages/Committee/ WG
discussions that occurred when the ALAC statement was posted for initial
community review last month, The Joint Statement is going to act as an
appendix to our earlier and reviewed ALAC Statement on GNSO Improvements
document,  to address the matters of a proposed GNSO structure and voting
alternative from a User perspective, that were specifically NOT included in
that as we were working in parallel on the Joint Statement at the time... 

Any comments or issues with the Joint Statement however can be incorporated
into our ALAC Statement at this stage, (via the use of the Wiki page
Comments button please) so in effect the community is getting an additional
opportunity for comment and review now that they have a chance to look at
the content and specifics of the Joint Statement ...  

Please note that comments received in the review of the ALAC statement
(which did not focus on the matters of proposed alternate structure and
voting- as that was the focus of the Joint Statement) regarding desires and
models for structure *were* to the best of the RALO representatives in the
ALAC GNSO Improvements WG imbedded into the Joint Statement wherever
possible and the use of language such as User rather than Registrant  etc.,
is reflective of this as an example... 

There has been some recent discussion / disappointment diatribes posted to
the Internal and NARALO lists regarding the Joint Statement in terms of both
process of its development and its content and validity... This was a result
of Beau Brendler raising in the internal list some language change questions
(also followed up then by Wendy) between versions of the developing Joint
Statement sourced from list run by other constituencies (ipconstituency list
is the actual example) earlier this week... Specifically to the matter of
'had the language changes diminished the intention to ensure Consumer
Organisations and Universities a mechanism to have their voices heard'? in
the version 3 language...

I took the opportunity then, to reply to the internal list with the
following text...<sent  Wed 4/23/2008 8:54AM (aest)> " Hi Beau (and now
Wendy)....  The draft you are referring to is a v3 of a document that the v4
should have been released to me and the others working on the joint user
statement, several hours ago, but which I've yet to receive... and that
version has a few additional changes that have been agreed to... But your
raising of these points is however very timely, as the Final should be out
to us all in short order... 

Firstly to the history and rational behind the specific language shift you
identify...  As anyone who has ever worked on a collaborative  document with
a group of similarly intended but specifically different (in term of the
variety of existing (or otherwise) representational history and interests in
terms of their particular constituencies) drafters acting in committee (who
themselves are being advised by subcommittee) will realize significant
language change (wordsmithing) happens between versions... In this case it
was the NCUC (who represent the universities) who suggested the change and
the rest of us agreed that we needed to clearly partition the role of ALAC
as an AC from the important intent of At-Large (inclusive of all users
registrants or otherwise) as an equitable part of a reformed GNSO with
regard to both the structure of such a body AND with regards to voting...  

This is the intent of the current wording and in no way indicates a
downgrading or shift away from the importance of Consumer Groups and
Universities as input nodes to this, rather it does not specifically list
them over any other class or nomenclature of User (registrant or non
Registrant) and indeed as Consumer Groups are just as likely to be an ALS
and involved in RALO activities as a University is to have 'membership' of
the NCUC; the use of the following text "...(the non-commercial
constituency,  the At Large Structures and individuals drawn from the
Regional At-Large Organisations) with an updated program and membership
scope..."  was agreed to be more inclusive rather than exclusive language to

And regarding the 'discussion' on the developmental drafts, the ALAC input
has been specifically contributed by the GNSO Improvements WG that has
representation from all RALO's and we have taken a great deal of care to
encompass and consider all the At-Large comments and suggestions on this
topic, both generally and specifically in response to the associated ALAC
statement on GNSO improvements posted more than a month ago now which
specifically does NOT refer to structure as this joint document does, but
will be presented as an overarching response from the ALAC, with the Joint
documentation appended by the close of the public comment period on April

I hope this helps clarify the language changes, and I do trust that as
promised the v4 document will be in our hands shortly...

CLO" <end cut and paste>

I hope that reproducing it here also helps inform this wider list audience
of the processes that (as ALAC via its WG) we were/have been undertaking...

I do not think it appropriate that I comment on discussions that then ran on
the NARALO list per se (as I believe the autonomy of RALO debate is
essential) but I would like to make clear my extreme personal disappointment
that the NARALO (or at least some members thereof) feel that they were not
being adequately included or represented in the development phase (pre
release before the for comment period) of the Joint Statement by their
representative on the ALAC GNSO Improvements WG Alan Greenberg; Particularly
because Alan had made significant, greatly valued, ongoing and I might say
extraordinary input into the WG activities including managing to suggest
some word changes between V3 and the Final v4 document whilst in Africa and
under extremely poor connectivity limitations... 

I further trust that the hard work put in by this NARALO ALAC representative
is not being either unappreciated or ignored by his region (or interpreted
that way by others) as a result of that lists deliberations... Certainly we
need to note that at this stage we have no similar issues regarding the
Joint Statement coming in from the other RALO's whose WG reps I should make
very clear also worked in a very hard in positive and committed manner to be
broadly representative of their Regions views... 

The Chair of NARALO has called (I believe) for an Ad-Hoc regional committee
to be formed to draft an opposing document... I also hope they will place
specific points into the current comment collection and collation process,
via the Wiki and I assume that the outcome of this regional committee will
be very specific in listing where the NARALO's views are at variance or
opposition to the Joint Statement.  So that the intended inclusiveness may
yet be achieved, however if the At-Large Community from all regions feel
that this process would be better facilitated by the ALAC perhaps organizing
a topic specific conference call then please let me know and we will do our
best to organize it (or whatever alternate collaborative tool is thought
more effective to enhance *broad Regional input* I our limited time)...

Significant effort was I can assure you made to forward the diversity of
views expressed  in response to the earlier ALAC statement, but naturally
individual alternatives are and should be encouraged to be forwarded into
the Public consultation in this topic as well...  

We should also take the time here to reflect on the fact that this Joint
Statement is not an 'end point' of some sort of negotiation, it is meant to
be a proposal of a mutually agreeable alternate structure for the Boards
consideration, that results in better input and equity for Users in GNSO
policy development...  Even if by chance this proposal was deemed accepted
outright as the "perfect design" significant detail work will still need to
follow and I for one would like to see that being done in a spirit of
collegial or mutually beneficial ways with the other User Constituencies,
that brings from the At-Large Internet User Community a 'best fit, best
practice' global approach...

Finally should the desire of the ALAC be to radically alter or revisit the
ALAC Statement then of course as an AC we can make take longer and make our
input outside of the extension time, but it has always been my intent to fit
in with the timelines now set if at all possible...


-----Original Message-----
From: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of At-Large Staff
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 8:19 AM
To: At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss; Europe Discuss; LAC Discuss; Africa
Discuss; Asia-Pacific Discuss
Subject: [At-Large] GNSO Improvements - ALAC and Joint Statements - comments

Dear All:

As you may recall, an Ad-Hoc Working Group on GNSO Improvements, with
representatives of each RALO, has been working on a response to the public
consultation on the Board Governance Committee¹s proposals for improvements
to the GNSO.

As a part of that work, the working group was also engaged in negotiations
with various communities within the GNSO Community, including the Commercial
and Business Users, Intellectual Property, Internet Service and Connectino
Providers, and Non-Commercial Users Constituencies.

The Joint Statement that resulted from those discussions was posted to the
public comment forum today, and is accessible at:

The Working Group also produced a draft statement for transmission to the
Board of Directors by the ALAC in its role as an Advisory Committee. That
document was subject to a community comment period, and the working group
incorporated those comments received ­ however, the working group took the
decision that it would be better to wait to finalise the text until after
the Joint Statement was finished, so that the At-Large community could take
one final look at the two statements, make any comments, and if necessary
those comments could then be dealt with in the ALAC¹s individual statement.
The ALAC also discussed the progress on this issue at its meeting earlier
this month.

The Staff have been asked to post a version of the ALAC statement, as well
as the Joint Statement, so that comments can be taken. It is envisaged that
we will be able to take comments for a few days as the statement can be
transmitted to the board following the end of the public comment period on
the GNSO Improvements draft, which finishes on the 24th of April.

You may access both the draft ALAC Statement, and the Joint Statement, from
this URL. Please do use the comment button to provide any comments you care
to make.



Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul
ICANN At-Large Staff
email: staff at atlarge.icann.org

ALAC mailing list
ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

More information about the EURO-Discuss mailing list