<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <html><head> <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head>No problem Alex<br/><br/>These are complicated issues with much history to understand!<br/><br/>Cheers<br/><br/>Rosemary<p>Sent from my BlackBerry® from Optus</p><hr/><div><b>From: </b> "Alex Gakuru" <gakuru@gmail.com>
</div><div><b>Date: </b>Fri, 12 Nov 2010 07:00:42 +1100</div><div><b>To: </b>Rosemary Sinclair<Rosemary.Sinclair@atug.org.au></div><div><b>Cc: </b><NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu></div><div><b>Subject: </b>Re: SPAM-LOW: Constituencies, old and new</div><div><br/></div>Rosemary,<div><br></div><div>My response was inadvertently under this thread when meant for another. Please ignore it here and excuse me.</div><div><br></div><div><div><div>Alex</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Rosemary Sinclair <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Rosemary.Sinclair@atug.org.au">Rosemary.Sinclair@atug.org.au</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">so now we have to chat about "grandfathering provisions" and need a new clause in the proposed Charter which is clear on our position that any Constituency however approved that is a part of NCSG is bound by the Charter rules of NCSG....<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Rosemary<br>
</font><div class="im"><br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: NCSG-NCUC on behalf of Alex Gakuru<br>
Sent: Fri 11/12/2010 3:45 AM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
Subject: Re: SPAM-LOW: Constituencies, old and new<br>
<br>
Spot on Milton! See:<br>
<a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/soac-newgtldapsup-wg/msg00627.html" target="_blank">http://forum.icann.org/lists/soac-newgtldapsup-wg/msg00627.html</a><br>
It was just after the Board had decided to do away with the work we'd done<br>
on JAS-WG. However, they later on changed their mind and "encouraged us to<br>
carry on with the work."<br>
<br>
<br>
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Milton L Mueller <<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
</div><div><div></div><div class="h5">> Off list<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> *From:* NCSG-NCUC [mailto:<a href="mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>] *On Behalf<br>
> Of *Rosemary Sinclair<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Hmmm - the way I read our proposed Charter is that a Constituency however<br>
> formed (whether from within or by direct application to the Board)<br>
><br>
> When it is within NCSG (whether formed from within or attached by the<br>
> Board)<br>
><br>
> Is then bound by our Charter rules on voting, Councillors etc<br>
><br>
> That would be incorrect.<br>
><br>
> If NPOC is formed under our proposed NCSG charter, then it is bound by our<br>
> rules on voting, Councillors, etc.<br>
><br>
> But our charter is not in effect yet, and clearly Amber and Debbie are not<br>
> applying under those rules.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> So if the constituency is approved before the NCSG charter is approved, we<br>
> really have no idea how NCSG works.<br>
><br>
> And it is possible, though not likely, that we revert to the old<br>
> constituency rules, which creates the walled garden/silos.<br>
><br>
> No way around it: Debbie and Amber's move was untimely and not<br>
> constructive. Even if you like their constituency proposal, the way they've<br>
> done it creates a mess.<br>
><br></div></div></blockquote></div>
</div></div></div>
</html>