What we have so far:<br><br><div class="ace-line" id="magicdomid173"><span class="author-g-053cj9behe8e3ol7">As was discussed in Tuesday's meeting between the NCSG and the Board, </span><span class="author-g-0sqjz122zoppt82nl4do">NCUC </span><span class="author-g-053cj9behe8e3ol7">wishes to reiterate its</span><span class="author-g-0sqjz122zoppt82nl4do"> concer</span><span class="author-g-053cj9behe8e3ol7">n</span><span class="author-g-0sqjz122zoppt82nl4do">
that the intent of the GNSO reforms are not being met, specifically
with respect to the proposed NPOC's relationship to the NC Stakeholder
Group. <br><br>To our understanding, NPOC (1) has members who don't intend to
be NCSG members (and thus are NOT part of any GNSO SG); 2) does not
maintain a dynamic publicly-archived mailing list; and (3) refuses to
participate in policy discussions on the main NCSG mailing
list.<br><br>Therefore, we ask that the Board </span><span class="author-g-053cj9behe8e3ol7">only give conditional</span><span class="author-g-0sqjz122zoppt82nl4do"> approval of NPOC until these issues </span><span class="author-g-053cj9behe8e3ol7">are</span><span class="author-g-0sqjz122zoppt82nl4do">
resolved. NCUC would like to work with NPOC to resolve these issues
expeditiously so that as a whole NCSG will be a broader, larger and even
more diverse SG.</span></div><br><br><br clear="all">---------------------------------------<br>Brenden Kuerbis<br>Internet Governance Project<br><a href="http://internetgovernance.org" target="_blank">http://internetgovernance.org</a><br>