Results of the Chartering process

[Milton L Mueller]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of
> 
> So "commercial" consumer organisations being organisations who have
> commercial members even when their focus is consumer interests - for
> example ATUG has industry members but clear policy position that focuses
> on end user outcomes (and yes this IS possible in Australia!)

[Milton L Mueller] Exactly the problem Rosemary. Suppose we start a consumer constituency (CC) and it is in NCSG. Then all those commercial organizations focused on consumer issues from the standpoint of business members would have to join NCSG. Then suddenly a whole bunch of NCSG membership is commercial organizations. Not good. 

By the same token, suppose noncommercial organizations want to join CSG to pursue a consumer agenda. Can they do so? No. So it's unbalanced. 

Superficially, it always sounds good to form a "constituency" around an issue or a set of concerns. Are you an academic? Form an academic constituency! Are you for gay rights? Form a LGBT constituency? Are you X and for Y? Form the XY constituency. Etc., etc.  

But when you think about how constituencies fit into ICANN's GNSO structure and communication patterns, it creates more problems than it addresses. The simple fact is that anyone who wants to pursue a consumer agenda across ALAC and GNSO has lots of channels to do so. Forming a constituency _detracts_ from that process by creating political and organizational hassles and adding duplicate administration, and confusing the hell out of incoming new members who don't know where to go and who may get locked into a silo where they don't have access to all the people they should have access to.