Charters

[Milton L Mueller]

Hi, Ralph and Jon

Its good to hear from new members, thanks for your interventions. Let me
update you on the process these discussions are part of. 

 

The process of developing a new charter for the NCSG actually started
about six months ago, with preparations for the Paris ICANN meeting in
June 2008. 

 

In Paris we had a lengthy discussion of the idea of allowing individual
membership and the future status of constituencies in a new
Noncommercial Stakeholders Group. 

In July I proposed a plan for provisional individual membership which
was accepted by the NCUC. 

 

During this period ICANN formed a special working group composed of all
the GNSO constituencies which came up with the new bicameral structure
of the GNSO which was eventually approved by the Board. In July. In
August we held discussions with ALAC about the nature of the new NCSG. 

 

In September we began discussion drafting a new charter for the NCSG. On
September 24, I circulated the first draft proposal for defining and
recognizing new constituencies.  

 

If you look at our archives for October 2008, you will find extensive
discussion of the proposed new structure. This led into the Cairo
meeting. At the Cairo meeting we not only had extensive discussions
within the NCUC meeting, but also met with the business user
constituencies and with ALAC to discuss the proposals for several hours.


 

You can review our online discussion archives at this link
http://listserv.syr.edu/archives/ncuc-discuss.html 

 

Based on all this we prepared a consolidated draft for submission to the
Board. I circulated the first draft to the list 15 November and a
finalized version 24 November. In both cases it was made clear that the
agreed version would be sent to the Board Governance Committee
immediately.

 

So the draft I am circulating is not "Milton's proposal" as you called
it, but the _NCUC's proposal_, i.e. the official proposal of this
constituency, which emerged from extensive discussions over a 6 month
period. 

 

On November 25 - a day _after_ our finalized draft was submitted to the
Board, Cheryl submitted to our list an "alternative" draft. As I am sure
you can understand from the long prologue, this draft has no real
standing in the process I have described. It reflects Cheryl's own
ideas, not those of the constituency as a whole. It contains structural
proposals that did not obtain any support either from NCUC members at
the Cairo meeting or on the list, so far. Whatever the merits of the
proposals, however, her "alternative" comes too late to have any serious
affect on the process. The NCUC draft has already been submitted. Any
modifications of that draft will come later, after we have received
feedback from the Board and the staff on the official proposal. From
this point on, the NCUC proposal is our working document. If you or
anyone else wants to alter it, the alterations must be proposed as
amendments to that document. 

 

If Cheryl and others want to modify the draft we are working on, the
time for amendments will come after we have received input from the
staff and Board. You will be notified of those comments, and we will
have an organized process for making proposals and implementing them. 

 

At this juncture, it is not productive - and indeed, it must seem quite
"off-putting" (as you put it) and confusing  - to have someone to submit
a completely alternative draft, as if we were still in the initial
drafting stage. If you sense "bad blood" here, it stems from Cheryl's
attempt to disrupt the process we are engaged in, and her unwillingness
to accept the fact that her ideas for NCSG organization haven't gotten
any support. What you see here is really an attempt to substitute a
unilaterally drafted proposal for one that the constituency as a whole
developed and agreed to submit. Again, I invite you to review the
archives to confirm this.

 

You asked for explanations why the NCUC proposal is "better" than
Cheryl's. The first and most important reason is that it is the proposal
the constituency as a whole has agreed on up to this point. The
substantive reasons why most members don't support what Cheryl has
proposed are 1) it is an overly complicated proposal with too many
positions and too many moving parts, and people believe that it is not
sustainable in a volunteer organization; 2) it is designed to shift all
executive and administrative power to constituencies (which will be
multiple and unintegrated) and away from the NCSG membership as a whole.
This will fragment the NCSG and make it extremely difficult for it to
develop unified positions and to operate effectively in the GNSO. 

 

You are a recent member and someone who did not attend the Cairo
meeting, where these problems were discussed extensively, so it is not
surprising that you may feel as if the discussion is opaque. But believe
me, Cheryl's ideas have been considered - and rejected - by most of the
members up to now. 

 

Regards, 

--MM

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20081130/4a16d8f1/attachment.html>