NPOC Q&A Document

[Avri Doria]

Hi,


On 9 Nov 2010, at 15:39, Rosemary Sinclair wrote:

> Hi All
> 
> now I am unclear...
> 
> Could the organisations join individually ( we have done this for about 6 organisations) while the Constituency process is underway - that way they are part of NCSG independently of the constituency process- this deals with the transparency problem

Yes, in fact that is the path I have always advocated.
We just have to be more efficient in processing application than we have been of late.


> 
> Separately after the constituency decision is made - they stay because they are OK without a peer group OR they leave because there is no peer group

Yes, though one would hope they remained and contributed their viewpoints and skills.

> 
> being a small organisation I see real value in the Constituency idea as described in our Charter
> 
> Part of me understands the other view - ICANN is too big and incomprehensible so having a group of "known others" make it far less daunting and onerous to participate....
> 

Well we were hoping that Non Commercial Stakeholders was the group, or became the group of known others.

We have been forced into this more formalized notion of constituencies than the NCSG wanted because the Board/Staff insists on it - and that is why we are trying to find a compromise between the notion of strict silos with assigned council seating which Milton has mentioned, and the more fluid notions of Interest Groups.  We seem to be close to reaching that point where there are Constituencies defined as: 

from: https://st.icann.org/ncsg-ec/index.cgi?ncsg_charter_board_issue_resolution

	• The Group wanting to form a Constituency should have a common interest or background, i.e. be homogeneous with respect to some dimension of relevance to ICANN and to the NCSG. Its focus must be sufficiently defined and have substantive relevance within both the ICANN and the NCSG context and with respect to its core mission.
	• All members of the group should should already either be members of the NCSG or be qualified for membership under the rules established in section 2.2 on Membership.
	• The Constituency application should indicate how it represents or can represent a broad population associated with its scope, not just a limited group.
	• The proposed Constituency should have a plan of action to contribute to current and new policy discussions within the GNSO community. Constituencies should be oriented towards action.
	• A Constituency should be unique; there should not be two Constituencies attempting to represent the same interest group. Constituencies should not overlap.
	• A Constituency should have international outreach including members in all five regions and should include members from developing countries. This diversity requirement could be met by inclusion of international organizations as members, which in turn had members in multiple regions.

Note: this is still proposed and not yet accepted, and is still somewhat under attack by elements of the staff.  I have sympathy with anyone new who was told by the Staff, the official bearers of the ICANN imprimatur, that they should ignore our rules because they had not been approved and were thus meaningless.

But I would still hope that they would want to find a way to work with the existing members of the NCSG. 

I think the proposed group is trying to thread that needle, but I am not sure to what extent they have been successful.

> then we get back to the "open arms" "broad tent" discussion -
> 
> we'll need Induction procedures and mentoring arrangements before we're finished!!!!!

well, what we defined is:

- a candidate process where we help them get organized and start participating (is that the mentoring part?)
- a candidacy period of time to get familiar one with the other and hopefully work out any difference in perspective 
- an approval process
- an appeals process
- a board oversight process

This is what I hoped would happen after the proposed group filed its intention to form.  Unfortunately, they decided on a purely external path so we find ourselves in the current situation.  That and we in the EC fell down on processing new membership applications, though there only a handful and not 20.


> 
> Avri will tell everyone that's just my crazy sense of humour!

Yeah, but I am humorless, so how would I know?

But seriously, we do need a process for growing new constituencies.  And we need new constituencies because that is how resources are allocated and nomcom seats are linked to them.

I would hope that there wold be a way to negotiate a set of changes to the proposed new constituency definition and name so that we could embrace the formation of the new constituency.  I know a lot of people in the group would be supportive of a group focused on charity and charitable services.

Quite a few are also waiting for the consumer interest group/constituency to make it to full status.  

As I said, we need constituencies.

a.