preliminary notes from 30 Sept. board meeting online

[Baudouin SCHOMBE]

dear all,

While following seriously this debate, the consumers constituency,if so, can
be consider as a catalyst vector. In fact which is consumer and which is
not? With my opinion, the consumers constituency reinforces and gives a very
great opportunity to civil society entities to express their opinion.


Baudouin

2009/10/14 Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>

> I remain concerned about the way consumer organizations in NCUC have been
> left out the discussion entirely regarding the creation of a so-called
> "consumer constituency".
> It is fine for Beau to gather groups that agree with his pro-law
> enforcement perspective of how to protect consumers, but it isn't fair to
> exclude those consumer groups who do not espouse such a pro-law enforcement
> viewpoint of how to empower consumers.   There are just far more
> perspectives to incorporate than this single narrow mindset to claim the
> entire label of "consumer constituency".   We need to see more diversity of
> perspective among the groups who want to claim this broad label.
>
> Robin
>
>
> On Oct 13, 2009, at 4:02 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> I totally support the position Avri is stating here.
> We certainly know that nonduplication will be used by the existing CSG
> constituencies when convenient; we also know that Beau and others can
> "claim" to be "talking to" lots of important organizations but when push
> comes to shove they didn't even comment in favor of his petition, so
> evidence of actual members is essential./
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC- <NCUC->
> DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 8:35 AM
> To: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] preliminary notes from 30 Sept. board meeting
> online
>
> On 13 Oct 2009, at 14:06, William Drake wrote:
>
> i would recommend adding consideration of:
>
> c: That they have consulted with the consumer protection
> constituents already in the NCUC and can show why this is not
> duplication
> d. That they be able to show that they are already viable in terms
> of having an active membership and an email list and have started
> creating postions and having enough people to start really
> contributing to the working groups
>
>
> e. That the new charter be again put out for review before final
> Board approval
>
> (these are the kind of things that i think should be standard for
> all new constituencies)
>
>
> I'm fine with these, but wouldn't adding more conditions (under
> which what, we won't complain?) invite more push back from board,
> staff, proponents?  I was thinking timing and actually nonprofit
> were a minimalist set of criteria it's harder to argue against.  I
> guess we'll see how it all plays soon enough.
>
>
>
> I guess I would have to recommend that all the reasonable conditions
> for accepting a new constituency should be laid out at the start.
> Adding conditions later on seems like the kind of tactic others have
> engaged in too frequently in the GNSO environment.  Better to have the
> Board know up front what seems reasonable.  If you go into this
> meeting with a bare minimalist position, when you compromise in the
> end (and one always has to compromise to get anything in the end) you
> will get less then your bare minimum.
>
> I do not think that we should present unreasonable requests, but I
> think the 3 I suggested are reasonable for all constituencies
> anywhere, and I think of them as being a minimum.  Lets put it this
> way, if you wanted to form a working group in the IETF these kind of
> things are basic, and there they are only talking about ephemeral
> technical discussion groups, not permanent entities to form the policy
> for the Internet in general.  These are thing that should be simple
> for any real constituency to show - again I use the cities
> constituency as an example.  They have all of this and more.
>
> While the negotiating group has to be polite, reasonable and concise,
> it does not need to sell itself short.  I think it is reasonable to be
> determined that a new constituency be real and a substantive entity
> before it becomes a constituency.
>
> (And remember, this is from someone who in general has always
> supported the creation of constituencies within an SG structure with
> flat voting of some sort.)
>
> a.
>
>
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>
>
>
>


-- 
SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
téléphone fixe: +243 1510 34 91
Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243999334571
                          +243811980914
email:b.schombe at gmail.com <email%3Ab.schombe at gmail.com>
blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr
blog:http://educticafrique.ning.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20091014/91e44cfc/attachment.html>