<!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: SPAM-LOW: Constituencies, old and new</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>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>
<BR>
Rosemary<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: NCSG-NCUC on behalf of Alex Gakuru<BR>
Sent: Fri 11/12/2010 3:45 AM<BR>
To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<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">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 <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> Off list<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> *From:* NCSG-NCUC [<A HREF="mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">mailto: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>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>