SPAM-LOW: Constituencies, old and new

Rosemary Sinclair rosemary.sinclair at ATUG.ORG.AU
Thu Nov 11 11:42:21 CET 2010


Hmmm - the way I read our proposed Charter is that a Constituency however formed (whether from within or by direct application to the Board)

When it is within NCSG (whether formed from within or attached by the Board)

Is then bound by our Charter rules on voting, Councillors etc

Cheers

Rosemary
Sent from my BlackBerry® from Optus

-----Original Message-----
From: "Hago Dafalla" <dafalla at YAHOO.COM>
Sender: "NCSG-NCUC" <NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 19:15:56 
To: <NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
Reply-To: "Hago Dafalla" <dafalla at YAHOO.COM>
Subject: SPAM-LOW: Constituencies, old and new


I Agree with Milton.

  Thanks

Hago Elteraifi Mohamed Dafalla
System Administrator and Network Manager
Faculty of Engineering and Technology
University of Gezira
Wad Medani, Sudan
--- On Wed, 10/11/10, Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU> wrote:

From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU>
Subject: Constituencies, old and new
To: 
Date: Wednesday, 10 November, 2010, 17:04

RE: SPAM-LOW: Re: NPOC Q&A DocumentNo, Rosemary, we are not arguing against constituencies as provided for in the proposed NCSG charter. We are arguing against creating an NPOC using the old Constituency-silo model that makes every constituency into a separate “walled garden” and fragments our Council representation along constituency lines. One reason we have this trouble now is that the advocates don’t want to wait for the new charter, which allows new constituencies to be formed.   Under the proposed NCSG charter, constituencies or “special interest groups” can form at will, but the voting for Council members and leadership is integrated across all NCSG members. This is the best model for all interests. I thought that this model was acceptable to Amber and Debbie, however because the Board continues to delay approval of our charter they have chosen to apply to become a constituency under the old model.   That would be a huge problem,
 because whatever new NCSG charter the Board does approve will not be like the old GNSO constituency model, and so NPOC, even if it is approved, will have the ground shift under it as soon as it is created.   I know this is confusing. It is a real problem, but it is mainly caused by the Board’s inaction and the staff’s interference, not by the advocates of NPOC .   I think we have a real problem...

Our Charter describes Constituencies at 2.3 (below) but it seems we are arguing against even the possibility of a Constituency within NCSG????


Cheers

Rosemary



2.3 Constituencies
Constituencies are the means by which NCSG members with similar concerns and interest can work together on the GNSO policy process. Constituencies will be eligible for representation on all NCSG committees. Constituencies do not participate in membership voting which includes, inter alia, GNSO Council Representatives or the NCSG Chair. In order to be recognized as a Constituency with full status, there is a two stage process:

Approval as a Candidate Constituency
Approval as a Full Status Constituency

2.3.1 Becoming a Candidate Constituency
There are 2 methods by which the application to become a Candidate Constituency may be initiated:

10 NCSG members (Organizational or Individual) must sign on to and publish a Statement of Intent to form a Constituency (SOI) indicating the purpose and goals of the Constituency.

Following the process established by ICANN, a noncommercial group files a Notification to Form a Constituency (NOIF) with the staff member designated to receive such forms.

etc etc
-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-NCUC on behalf of Carlos A. Afonso
Sent: Thu 11/11/2010 12:15 AM
To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: SPAM-LOW: Re: NPOC Q&A Document

Sorry, people, but I think what MM describes is precisely the main
objective of NPOC's initiative -- an ineffectual NCSG. Please correct me
and pull my ears if I am wrong.

Just flashed now in my mind: would Red Crescent join NPOC or NCSG? :)

--c.a.

On 11/09/2010 05:57 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> for me it's not so much an issue of protecting Red Cross brand - it's an issue of protecting consumers who might want to contribute to Red Cross from domain name scammer activity
>
> Of course, Rosemary. This NPOC issue has nothing whatsoever to do with one's policy position on Whois, trademarks or anything else. It is about the appropriate way in which these policy differences are reflected in the NCSG.
>
> NPOC has applied to create a (confusingly named) new constituency under the old constituency-silo mode. This would create an organizational "walled garden" for all nonprofits who support their views, and segregate NCSG into separate, competing (if not warring) factions who do not need to communicate with each other or work together. Now multiply this process tenfold times for every other policy difference that comes along. You can see where it leads: to a dead end, an ineffectual NCSG.
>

--

Carlos A. Afonso
====================================
new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca
====================================






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20101111/186fa1d3/attachment.html>


More information about the Ncuc-discuss mailing list