SPAM-LOW: Re: NPOC Q&A Document

[Baudouin SCHOMBE]

Andrew actually I agree with you. What is the purpose of creating and
recreating the groups which we do not know the ins and outs? Do we have
nothing else to do? Why bludgeon us with debates that lead to confusion in
the minds? Democratically speaking, is this really a reason to abuse the
minds with this kind of discussion in which we see neither head nor tail? Can
we also respect the right of each other?
Frankly, it's really gone too far.
Écouter
Lire phonétiquement
Dictionnaire - Afficher le
dictionnaire<http://www.google.cd/dictionary?source=translation&hl=fr&q=Effectivement&langpair=fr%7Cen>

   1. adverbe
      1. effectively
      2. indeed
      3. very

Traduction de sites Web

   - Telegraph.co.uk<http://translate.google.cd/?hl=fr&sl=en&tl=fr&sugg=w&hints=true&q=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/>
   -Royaume-Uni
   - Yomuiri Online<http://translate.google.cd/?hl=fr&sl=ja&tl=fr&sugg=w&hints=true&q=http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/>
   -Japon
   - Museo del Prado<http://translate.google.cd/?hl=fr&sl=es&tl=fr&sugg=w&hints=true&q=http://www.museodelprado.es/>
   -Espagne
   - Berlingske.dk<http://translate.google.cd/?hl=fr&sl=da&tl=fr&sugg=w&hints=true&q=http://www.berlingske.dk/>
   -Danemark
   - Komika Magasin<http://translate.google.cd/?hl=fr&sl=sv&tl=fr&sugg=w&hints=true&q=http://komikamagasin.se/>
   -suédois
   - The White House<http://translate.google.cd/?hl=fr&sl=en&tl=fr&sugg=w&hints=true&q=http://www.whitehouse.gov/>
   -États-Unis
   - Spiegel Online<http://translate.google.cd/?hl=fr&sl=de&tl=fr&sugg=w&hints=true&q=http://www.spiegel.de/>
   -Allemagne
   - Público.es<http://translate.google.cd/?hl=fr&sl=es&tl=fr&sugg=w&hints=true&q=http://www.publico.es/>
   -Espagne
   - USA Today<http://translate.google.cd/?hl=fr&sl=en&tl=fr&sugg=w&hints=true&q=http://www.usatoday.com/>
   -États-Unis
   - Los Angeles
Times<http://translate.google.cd/?hl=fr&sl=en&tl=fr&sugg=w&hints=true&q=http://www.latimes.com/>
   -États-Unis
   - Onet.pl<http://translate.google.cd/?hl=fr&sl=pl&tl=fr&sugg=w&hints=true&q=http://film.onet.pl/>
   -polonais
   - The Washington
Post<http://translate.google.cd/?hl=fr&sl=en&tl=fr&sugg=w&hints=true&q=http://www.washingtonpost.com/>
   -États-Unis


SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
*COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
 ACADEMIE DES TIC
*COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
*MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
*NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN)

Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243811980914
email:                   b.schombe at gmail.com
blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr



2010/11/10 Andrew A. Adams <aaa at meiji.ac.jp>

> Rosemary wrote'
> > I think we have a real problem...
> >
> > Our Charter describes Constituencies at 2.3 (below) but it seems we are
> arg=
> > uing against even the possibility of a Constituency within NCSG????
>
> Remember that our charter is not the current one under which the NPOC is
> being propsoed. The NPOC is being proposed under the current board-imposed
> interim charter.
>
> I don&t think the tone of comments here suggest people are against interest
> groups, or constituencies as the board insists we call them. What people
> are
> arguing against is both the principle and practice of this NPOC proposal.
>
> So far as I can see if the NPOC constituency within NCSG is created then
> we&re hemmed in to only two constituencies' organisations and users. Very
> few
> organisations that are both eligible and intersted in joining NCSG will not
> be non-profits, I suspect, particularly under the broad definitions of the
> NPOC proposal. That leaves us with individuals on one side and NPOs on
> another. The NPOC is way too broad and seems to me to be either naively
> over-broad o cynically empire-building, at the very least, and perhaps an
> attempt at political spoiling as has been suggested.
>
> I would also say that I am completely opposed, at this stage *and probably
> will be later) to any proposal that seeks to create a constituency/interest
> group in NCSG that doesn't already have a significant membership in the
> NCSG
> as a whole, or at the very least a list of eligible members who feel there
> isn't a suitable interest group/constituency for them to join. The only
> reason NCUC exists as an explicit constituency within NCSG is that the
> board
> insisted that we have constituencies right from the start, IIRC, and so
> everyone go to lumped into a single constituency. Over time we should
> expect
> that NCUC will either disappear as other more focussed interest groups
> form,
> or become the default place for members of NCSG who don't fit into a group
> and don't have enough others with whom to form a new group.
>
> We're still in the formation stage of NCSG really, and need to be very
> careful how we allow our political structures to develop. Historical
> institutionalism and path dependence lessons tell us that once we've got
> structures in place it will be difficult to change them. Much better to get
> them approximately right first time and then tweak them than have to fight
> internal political battles to slice and dice  a group set up too early with
> a
> way too broad remit. Yes, this places NCUC in an unnaturally strong
> position,
> but that was forced on us by the board rather than being something we've
> sought for ourselves, and I actually have reasonable faith that the
> majority
> of current members will not seek to undermine our work in getting the NCSG
> up
> and running in ICANN by using NCUC's position to attempt to dominate NCSG.
>
>
> --
> Professor Andrew A Adams                      aaa at meiji.ac.jp
> Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration,  and
> Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
> Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan       http://www.a-cubed.info/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20101110/d16c834e/attachment-0001.html>