Charters RESPONSE

[Norbert Klein]

Dear NCUC Colleagues, all together.

On Tuesday, 2 December 2008 01:33:00 Cheryl Preston wrote:

> 2.	Mary is correct in describing the “cohesive, unified”
> approach that has been the hallmark of NCUC representation.  Rather than
> being a political strength, however, the single issue solidarity has
> been seen by many in ICANN as a weakness, as a barrier to consensus
> building.

It is frustrating to read such opinion by "many" who are not identified.

I remember an occasion where the unified stance of the three NCUC GNSO
councillors was seen by SOME as a problem who suggested more "flexibility":
when the NCUC GNSO councillors voted with the majority of the GNSO Council to
put the WHOIS debate to rest (as we thought) after it had been dragging on
for - if I remember correctly - seven years, when the majority of the GNSO
councillors voted to have the WHOIS restricted to its original technical
purpose.

At that time we, from the NCUC - and others in the same GNSO Council
majority! - were accused to prevent "consensus building."

But those who did not like the majority decision of the GNSO Council started
another round: requiring to state the reasons why we voted as we had voted -
(I do not remember that ever in my life I had to do this), just repeating
again and again what had been on the table since years. And another
round "Shouldn't we have studies on WHOIS?" etc. was started.

> 3.	You all have expertise to make the critical decisions about
> charters.  ICANN is aware that their efforts to build a bottom-up
> support organization have been impaired by the way newcomers are treated.

I would appreciate to get some precise information from you how "ICANN is
aware that their efforts to build a bottom-up support organization have been
impaired by the way newcomers are treated." This is a severe accusation.

Once I get your information that "ICANN" has this position - which I never
heard of before - I would like to take it up with the persons representing
official ICANN positions.


> I see no reason to continue any discussion other than on the merits of
> the two proposals.
>
> Cheryl B. Preston

In spite of the fact that you do not want to continue "any discussion other
than on the merits of the two proposals" I am still asking that you help me
to understand this. I am utterly surprised: Does it imply that you do not
care to discuss the many issues we all face in ICANN, and in NCUC, if things
are not going according to your proposed process?

That cannot be true? Or if it is what you mean, there would be really no point
to discuss, in an environment, where we always have to continue to discuss
things - but according to commonly taken steps.

And it has been said time and again here, that we have ONE proposal, duly
discussed and forwarded. So we have to wait until a response comes back. I
see merit in this orderly sequence and process, which we have used over the
years.


Norbert

--
Phnom Penh/Cambodia
PGP key-id 0x0016D0A9

If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit us regularly -
you can find something new every day:

http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com (English)
http://kanhchoksangkum.wordpress.com (Khmer)