<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>I was very jetlagged yesterday, so I will post today. The notes below are my personal notes and in no way an official log of the Noncommercial Constituency. If you were at the meeting, please join in with your personal thoughts and comments.
<BR>
<BR>The meeting was chaired by Eung Hwi Chun, from Adcom. There were only a very few people at the start of the meeting: YJ Park, Adam Peake, Izumi Aizu, Norbert Klein, Jeanette Hofman, Lynn St Amour (sp?)/ISOC, David Mahir/ISOC and the new .ORG Public Interest Registry, Rob Courtney, me. Others came in as the meeting progressed.
<BR>
<BR>We talked about the question: "why aren't people here?" Some discussed the frustration of continually working within the ICANN structure and being "shot down" all the time. Others talked about the deep divisions even within our own constituency, and that we often have very divergent interests, needs, and concerns (and do not reinforce or support each other).
<BR>
<BR>Others discussed the sense of being overwhelmed in trying to lead the NCC -- a thankless job full of too much work in the Names Council, (past) working groups and (current) task forces, and too many criticisms from the NCC without much constructive help and assistance. Others talked about the focus on some for the At Large only, leaving the discussion when other issues are raised.
<BR>
<BR>Are there constructive ways to organize the NCC to get it working again? Perhaps clusters by interest area -- such as academic, professional society, democracy groups, etc? Perhaps regional meetings? Many more ideas are needed.
<BR>
<BR>David Mahir discussed the Public Interest Registry of .ORG. He also discussed his own background as a trademark attorney who was very active in protecting intellectual property in the domain name arena.
<BR>
<BR>We broke for the Evolution and Reform Committee meeting where the changes in the bylaws were defended adamantly by everyone involved in their drafting. Good questions about transparency, accountability, checks and balances, etc, were raised. I think Alejandro may have something to add in this section as chair of the committee and deeply committed to the reforms. I appreciate his responses to questions. On a personal note, I remain deeply concerned about the ERC process, the disenfranchisement of the At Large members, and the broad mission statement with few checks on the existing power of ICANN or the natural tendency of all organizations to try to expand their authority and scope. YJ adds that the NCC raised many good questions in the meeting, including from Rob Courtney, from YJ Park, and from Adam Peake.
<BR>
<BR>I will let someone else explain the At Large meeting, as I was fairly new to the issues. I found a deep division in the room -- between those who did not accept the loss of direct elections to the Board from the At Large and those who wanted to make due with what the At Large has been given in the At Large Advisory Committee (such as seeking funding, and trying to put people on each task force).
<BR>
<BR>We returned to a discussion of why the NCC is failing, and then closed.
<BR>
<BR>regards, kathy
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
<BR>Somebody can tell us what happend in the meeting of the constituency today?
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR></FONT></HTML>