Sinclair comments - Members review of Draft Proposed NCSG Charter

[Rosemary Sinclair]

Rafik

 

That's good! Just wanted to make sure we cover this base

 

Rosemary

 

Rosemary Sinclair

Managing Director, ATUG

Chairman, INTUG

T: +61 2 94958901  F: +61 2 94193889

M: +61 413734490 

Email: rosemary.sinclair at atug.org.au
<mailto:rosemary.sinclair at atug.org.au> 

Skype: rasinclair

 

Please visit the ATUG website for Updates and Information
www.atug.com.au 

 

________________________________

From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, 5 May 2010 12:16 PM
To: Rosemary Sinclair
Cc: NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
Subject: Re: Sinclair comments - Members review of Draft Proposed NCSG
Charter

 

Hi Rosemary,

 

about resourcing Interest Groups, I think that there is no need for
commitment from the Board as the toolkit document drafted by the OSC CSG
WT and which was approved by the GNSO council intent to provide needed
resources for Groups. The ICANN staff is working now on the
implementation ( I asked about that few weeks ago).

 

Regards

 

Rafik

2010/5/3 Rosemary Sinclair <rosemary.sinclair at atug.org.au>

Hi Avri

I am happy to go with consensus - my only purpose was to provide you
with some input based on my views

The highlighting was just to point to the specific words that caused me
to comment

My point on Constituencies is an administrative one - and if Board is
happy for NCSG to have only Interest Groups then I suggest we ask the
Board to commit to resourcing Interest Groups eg the discussion on face
to face mtgs of some months ago

I'm happy to provide more info on any point that might be unclear

Cheers

Rosemary

Sent from my BlackBerry(r) from Optus

________________________________

From: "Avri Doria" <avri at LTU.SE> 

Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 13:45:52 +1000

To: <NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>

Subject: Re: Sinclair comments - Members review of Draft Proposed NCSG
Charter

 

Hi,


I have read through your extensive edits and on first reading, I have a
question and a comment:


- the question:  I do not understand why you have highlighted section in
yellow.  do you mean that the charter should have these things
highlighted.

- On the question of constituencies.

The board has already approved two Stakeholder Groups charters that do
not have constituencies.    As I understood our conversations with the
SIC and the Board they are not requiring constituencies so long as we
have a clear charter and we explain the decisions we have made.    This
is the purpose of the cover letter which is still being worked.

Yours is the first call I have seen from within the NCSG for us to
continue with formal constituencies and I do not know if there is any
other support for it with the NCSG membership.

At this point unless I see strong support from the members, I do not
think it is something we should change.

I will look through the rest of your proposed edits in detail.

a.

On 2 May 2010, at 22:31, Rosemary Sinclair wrote:

> Hi Avri and everyone
>
> Some thoughts for discussion
>
> Cheers
>
> Rosemary
>
> Rosemary Sinclair
> Managing Director, ATUG
> Chairman, INTUG
> T: +61 2 94958901  F: +61 2 94193889
> M: +61 413734490
> Email: rosemary.sinclair at atug.org.au
> Skype: rasinclair



 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20100505/67998407/attachment.html>