<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7654.12">
<TITLE>RE: NPOC Q&A Document</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Hi All<BR>
<BR>
now I am unclear...<BR>
<BR>
Could the organisations join individually ( we have done this for about 6 organisations) while the Constituency process is underway - that way they are part of NCSG independently of the constituency process- this deals with the transparency problem<BR>
<BR>
Separately after the constituency decision is made - they stay because they are OK without a peer group OR they leave because there is no peer group<BR>
<BR>
being a small organisation I see real value in the Constituency idea as described in our Charter<BR>
<BR>
Part of me understands the other view - ICANN is too big and incomprehensible so having a group of "known others" make it far less daunting and onerous to participate....<BR>
<BR>
then we get back to the "open arms" "broad tent" discussion -<BR>
<BR>
we'll need Induction procedures and mentoring arrangements before we're finished!!!!!<BR>
<BR>
Avri will tell everyone that's just my crazy sense of humour!<BR>
<BR>
cheers<BR>
<BR>
Rosemary<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: NCSG-NCUC on behalf of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"<BR>
Sent: Wed 11/10/2010 7:15 AM<BR>
To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<BR>
Subject: AW: NPOC Q&A Document<BR>
<BR>
Thanks Amber for the professional PR effort.<BR>
<BR>
I understand the whole saga now a little bit better. However my two questions remain unanswered.<BR>
<BR>
You say that 20 organisations are behind you but you can not disclose their names now. Why not? It would give your application more strengths if people would know who is behind you. Unavoidly you feed a motion of "conspiracy" with this type of secrecy. Transparency is a key principle within ICANN. If you start your journey into the ICANN family by ignoring the principle of transparency this would be very bad. So please give us the names of the 20 organisations. Probably it would be useful if you would look into the open and transparent procedure how ALAC recognizes its members, the "At Large Structures" (ALSs). lt would be also ngood to clarify your psoition with regard to the At Large Community in ICANN.<BR>
<BR>
I am also not satisfied with your answer to my second question regarding outreach. You say this is "a journey, not a destination". Okay, but just listing the "underserved" regions without any concrete report about previous activities in these regions and a plan about forthcoming activities or at least a list of contacts to organisations, individuals etc. is just bad blabla. Also here, please give us more concrete details.<BR>
<BR>
Thanks<BR>
<BR>
Wolfgang<BR>
<BR>
________________________________<BR>
<BR>
Von: Amber Sterling [<A HREF="mailto:asterling@AAMC.ORG">mailto:asterling@AAMC.ORG</A>]<BR>
Gesendet: Mo 08.11.2010 16:26<BR>
An: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<BR>
Betreff: NPOC Q&A Document<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Hi All,<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Thank you for your questions and patience. Attached is the Q&A document we created to address your questions about the NPOC. We will send updated information regarding our membership towards the end of November.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Kind regards,<BR>
<BR>
Amber<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Amber Sterling<BR>
<BR>
Senior Intellectual Property Specialist<BR>
<BR>
Association of American Medical Colleges<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>