<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: Charters</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>Dear all,<BR>
<BR>
First of all let me in turn welcome all new members to the NCUC team and to say that I am looking forward to working with all of you.<BR>
I would like at this stage to echo Milton’s comments on the new proposed charter. There have been various emails amongst the members of this list and we have all agreed on the version of the charter that was submitted to the GNSO for approval. Cheryl’s proposal came in too late to be considered and did not receive any support from any of the members of the group (at least a visible support from the emails that we have so far received). The final version was an outcome of long discussions and had to comply with ICANN policy. Some of you may correctly think that ICANN is not an open organization, however this has nothing to do with the proposed charter. The NCUC – as a team – really tries to put forward various proposals and make our voices heard and to a certain extent this is happening. However, it is very difficult (as you will also realize yourselves) to change a culture that has been taking place for many years now; we are showing though good signs and it is rather unfair to downplay the important role that the NCUC has played so far.<BR>
As per ICANN, the decisions in the NCUC are taken based on consensus which is a perfectly legitimate way to go. It is very good (and important) to have different opinions but ,if these do not get the desired support, it is nobody’s fault. We are employing democratic processes and I can guarantee this to our new members. <BR>
Therefore, to cut the long story short, the new version of the charter was the position that the majority of the NCUC has taken and does not reflect individual preferences of thoughts.<BR>
<BR>
Regards<BR>
<BR>
Konstantinos <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 30/11/2008 17:36, "Kim, Nancy" <<a href="nsk@CWSL.EDU">nsk@CWSL.EDU</a>> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT FACE="Arial">I also agree with Professor Clifford and Professor Garon. The silence from the new members may have simply been that we were trying to make sense of the two drafts before joining in the discussion.<BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"> <BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE="Arial">Sincerely,<BR>
Nancy Kim<BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR>
<HR ALIGN=CENTER SIZE="3" WIDTH="100%"></FONT><FONT FACE="Tahoma, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><B>From:</B> Non-Commercial User Constituency on behalf of Jon Garon<BR>
<B>Sent:</B> Sat 11/29/2008 6:59 PM<BR>
<B>To:</B> <a href="NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><BR>
<B>Subject:</B> Re: Charters<BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR>
As another new member, I echo Professor Clifford's comments whole-heartedly. I would only add that simplicity is also valuable, so perhaps there is a way in which the goals of greater membership outreach can be integrated without adding significant complexity to the proposal.<BR>
<BR>
Thank you all.<BR>
<BR>
Jon Garon<BR>
Professor of Law<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
>>> "Ralph D. Clifford" <<a href="rclifford@SNESL.EDU">rclifford@SNESL.EDU</a>> 11/29/08 5:30 PM >>><BR>
<BR>
I will weigh in as a very new individual member. I have been lurking on the discussion of the charters, but have not contributed for two main reasons:<BR>
<BR>
First, as a new member, I do not have the background and experience with NCUC or ICANN governance as most of the rest of you appear to have. This makes it hard for me to generate substantive comments as I do not have the institutional background to understand all of the consequences of a charter.<BR>
<BR>
Second, the discussion itself is very off-putting. There appears to be considerable "bad blood" among others on the discussion group. Frankly, I'm not sure that I want to join in on one side or the other only to inherit these ill-feelings.<BR>
<BR>
The bottom line is that ICANN is not perceived to be an open organization, nor one that is willing to provide a voice to new users of the Internet and Web. Clearly, the system by which leaders are chosen within NCUC can have a significant impact on whether this changes. As a new member, I would request that the substance of the two drafts be compared and, in particular, comments on how each of the proposed drafts will affect the broadening or narrowing of participation be made. Similarly, if you believe that Milton's proposal is better, please explain why so that those of us who are trying to understand the issues can do so.<BR>
--<BR>
Ralph D. Clifford<BR>
Professor of Law<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR>
-- <BR>
Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,<BR>
Lecturer in Law,<BR>
GigaNet Membership Chair,<BR>
University of Strathclyde,<BR>
The Lord Hope Building,<BR>
141 St. James Road,<BR>
Glasgow, G4 0LT,<BR>
UK<BR>
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306<BR>
email: <a href="k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk">k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk</a> <BR>
</FONT></SPAN>
</BODY>
</HTML>