<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--body
{font-color:black;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor="#F0F0F0" lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Hi, Ralph and Jon<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Its good to hear from new members, thanks
for your interventions. Let me update you on the process these discussions are
part of. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>The process of developing a new charter
for the NCSG actually started about six months ago, with preparations for the
Paris ICANN meeting in June 2008. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>In <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Paris</st1:place></st1:City>
we had a lengthy discussion of the idea of allowing individual membership and
the future status of constituencies in a new Noncommercial Stakeholders Group. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>In July I proposed a plan for provisional
individual membership which was accepted by the NCUC. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>During this period ICANN formed a special
working group composed of all the GNSO constituencies which came up with the new
bicameral structure of the GNSO which was eventually approved by the Board. In July.
In August we held discussions with ALAC about the nature of the new NCSG. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>In September we began discussion drafting
a new charter for the NCSG. On September 24, I circulated the first draft
proposal for defining and recognizing new constituencies. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>If you look at our archives for October
2008, you will find extensive discussion of the proposed new structure. This led
into the <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Cairo</st1:place></st1:City>
meeting. At the <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Cairo</st1:place></st1:City>
meeting we not only had extensive discussions within the NCUC meeting, but also
met with the business user constituencies and with ALAC to discuss the
proposals for several hours. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>You can review our online discussion
archives at this link <a
href="http://listserv.syr.edu/archives/ncuc-discuss.html">http://listserv.syr.edu/archives/ncuc-discuss.html</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Based on all this we prepared a
consolidated draft for submission to the Board. I circulated the first draft to
the list 15 November and a finalized version 24 November. In both cases it was
made clear that the agreed version would be sent to the Board Governance
Committee immediately.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>So the draft I am circulating is not “<st1:City
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Milton</st1:place></st1:City>’s proposal”
as you called it, but the _<i><span style='font-style:italic'>NCUC’s proposal</span></i>_,
i.e. the official proposal of this constituency, which emerged from extensive
discussions over a 6 month period. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>On November 25 – a day _<i><span
style='font-style:italic'>after</span></i>_ our finalized draft was submitted
to the Board, Cheryl submitted to our list an “alternative” draft. As
I am sure you can understand from the long prologue, this draft has no real
standing in the process I have described. It reflects Cheryl’s own ideas,
not those of the constituency as a whole. It contains structural proposals that
did not obtain any support either from NCUC members at the <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">Cairo</st1:place></st1:City> meeting or on the list, so far. Whatever
the merits of the proposals, however, her “alternative” comes too
late to have any serious affect on the process. The NCUC draft has already been
submitted. Any modifications of that draft will come later, after we have received
feedback from the Board and the staff on the official proposal. From this point
on, the NCUC proposal is our working document. If you or anyone else wants to
alter it, the alterations must be proposed as amendments to that document. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>If Cheryl and others want to modify the
draft we are working on, the time for amendments will come after we have
received input from the staff and Board. You will be notified of those
comments, and we will have an organized process for making proposals and
implementing them. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>At this juncture, it is not productive –
and indeed, it must seem quite “off-putting” (as you put it) and
confusing – to have someone to submit a completely alternative
draft, as if we were still in the initial drafting stage. If you sense “bad
blood” here, it stems from Cheryl’s attempt to disrupt the process
we are engaged in, and her unwillingness to accept the fact that her ideas for
NCSG organization haven’t gotten any support. What you see here is really
an attempt to substitute a unilaterally drafted proposal for one that the
constituency as a whole developed and agreed to submit. Again, I invite you to
review the archives to confirm this.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>You asked for explanations why the NCUC
proposal is “better” than Cheryl’s. The first and most
important reason is that it is the proposal the constituency as a whole has agreed
on up to this point. The substantive reasons why most members don’t support
what Cheryl has proposed are 1) it is an overly complicated proposal with too
many positions and too many moving parts, and people believe that it is not
sustainable in a volunteer organization; 2) it is designed to shift all
executive and administrative power to constituencies (which will be multiple
and unintegrated) and away from the NCSG membership as a whole. This will
fragment the NCSG and make it extremely difficult for it to develop unified
positions and to operate effectively in the GNSO. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>You are a recent member and someone who
did not attend the <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Cairo</st1:place></st1:City>
meeting, where these problems were discussed extensively, so it is not
surprising that you may feel as if the discussion is opaque. But believe me,
Cheryl’s ideas have been considered – and rejected – by most
of the members up to now. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Regards, <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>--MM<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>