Constituencies, old and new

[Alex Gakuru]

Absolutely, and my reading of the unfolding borders on gaming of NCSG
representation -considering the undisclosed entities behind this move i.e.
the secrecy has not been generously transparent public interest disclosure.
And have those behind it disclosed their interests publicly or were they
excused?

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Hago Dafalla <dafalla at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> 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
>
>
> No, 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 <http://mc/compose?to=ca@cafonso.ca>
> ====================================
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20101111/76af4cb3/attachment-0001.html>