[NCUC E-team] Mailing lists

[Brenden Kuerbis]

All good points Edward. But I never said "restricting". :) And you're
right, we couldn't do it if we tried. People will discuss where they want,
discussions will migrate.  But it doesn't hurt to encourage people to
circulate their policy -related ideas as widely as possible to facilitate
consensus.

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Edward Morris <
edward.morris at alumni.usc.edu> wrote:

>
>>
>>
>>> i am not in favor of discuss at ncuc as i think that is partial
>>> duplication of ncsg-discuss.  i stil think we need the ncsg-discuss list as
>>> the primary general discussions list.
>>>
>>
>> Agree with that sentiment.
>>
>>
>>> how about: members at ncuc for all the administrative and general
>>> discussions - the list for subsidiarity stuff
>>>
>>
>>
>> Ok, so to put in a document to circulate with NCUC:
>>
>> The NCUC maintains a "members" list (e.g., members at ncuc.org) for
>> general, administrative discussion.  This list is closed to Constituency
>> members only, but is publicly archived (?).
>>
>> The Stakeholder Group maintains a "discussion" list (e.g.,
>> discuss at ncuc.org) for policy deliberation by NCSG members.  This list is
>> closed to members of NCSG Constituencies (NCUC, NPOC, etc.), but is
>> publicly archived.
>>
>>
>>
> I disagree with restricting the NCUC list to general, administrative
> discussion.
>
> There is certainly disagreement over the role of constituencies. Our
> platforms should be neutral in these disagreements.
>
> I will point out that structurally the NCUC has a PC. In terms of
> structure, the NCUC has a policy remit. I see no reason to restrict the
> NCUC list to administrative discussions. In fact, structurally I submit
> policy discussion should begin at the constituency level (the bottom of the
> bottom up process), be consolidated at the SG level, advanced at the GNSO
> level.
>
> That fact is, though, it doesn't matter what any of us think. People will
> go where they want to go and that's how it should be. As the only general
> list in the Constituency we need to keep the NCUC as open as possible. Let
> people go where they want. Some members, particularly some of our newer
> ones, might find it nice to be able to post some policy ideas where they
> might not be shut down by some of the NPOC people or ALAC liaisons. As
> decisions are made on the new gTLD applications it might be a nice place to
> discuss some of our own more liberal free expression and IP ideas, free of
> NPOC participation. Or maybe not - let it develop organically.
>
> Might I hazard a guess that a free and open NCUC discussion list might
> also  help us migrate some discussions from private lists. That would be a
> good thing as well.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/e-team/attachments/20130122/af6996f3/attachment.html>