NPOC Q&A Document

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Do you mean the charter argues against having constituencies?

Or that people are arguing against having constituencies?


If it the first, then there is something we need to fix in the draft charter.

If the second, then I think that is not really the case, but people do seems to have issues  this particular application that need to be dealt with.  Specifically:

- the name
- the membership scope

a.

On 10 Nov 2010, at 08:29, Rosemary Sinclair wrote:

> Hi all
> 
> 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
> ====================================
> 
> 
> 
>