preliminary notes from 30 Sept. board meeting online

[Milton L Mueller]

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-
> 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.