SPAM-LOW: Re: NPOC Q&A Document

[Andrew A. Adams]

> I really appreciate your comments!

You're welcome. Dialogue is definitely the way forward.

> I will think this through some more
> 
> I'm focused on getting to the point of having a Charter as I think we are in a weaker position (structurally with ICANN) until this is done

I agree, and many here believe that we should all be focussed on getting an 
acceptable charter to NCSG members adopted by the board/staff at ICANN, 
ratherr than trying to set up internal structures, particularly where the it 
is unclear what those structures will mean once we get the final charter in 
place.
 
> I understand the 'from with in" point - and the opportunity this creates to know people but there are "NPOC" members in NCSG now

Indeed, and none of them beyond the proposing organisation seem to have been 
approached to create an existing block of members, but the proposed members 
of the constituency are all shadowy non-members.
 
> I understand the "more specific focus" point eg I see possibility for Education, Consumers .....

Indeed, I would hope for example that educational institutions (separate from 
academics such as myself whose research is in this area) from schools to 
colleges to Universities would engage and they would form a natural interest 
group/constituency.
 
> Both of these in my view are fixable through dialogue
> 
> But our Charter includes Constituencies as an element in our structure - so for me the approach during the "Due Diligence" phase should focus on supporting the Constituency development and not on denying access

The NPOC proposal hs been submitted to ICANN over opposition by many within 
NCSG
 and under the interim charter. Given the lack of clarity with regards to 
what interest groups/constituencies will look like I do not think that 
proposing an actual constituency is useful at this point. On the other hand 
discussing the shape and membership criteria of interest groups would be very 
useful. These discussions need to be done whatever interest groups or 
constituencies look like under the final charter and that sort of discussion 
would be useful, so long as it doesn't distract from getting the charter 
issue sorted out.

 
> If I have misunderstood our process through inexperience that's fine
> 
> But these are my concerns at present

I think you are in agreement with most here that this NPOC proposal as a 
formal proposal to the Board for the construction of an NCSG constituency 
under the interim charter is a distraction from getting the final charter 
sorted out, and therefore unwelcome, whatever its merits as a long-term 
constituency.



-- 
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/