Results of the Chartering process

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

There was no intent to be diabolical, but merely to provide our sister Stakeholder group with the same advantages they afforded us.

As to the formation of constituencies.  Once the notion was to start spinning constituencies out of NCUC after the SG charter with flat elections was approved.  Other than the NCSG approval of that charter, which is still pending and which process I will start as soon as I have the info I need,  that charter has now been approved by the Board.

So given the advantages of Constituencies within the GNSO/ICANN structure, I was thinking it might be worth considering starting those spinouts.  It takes at least half a year, or more to actually complete the process, so it was not like I was rushing things, just suggesting that if people, such as Rosemary and Mary wanted to consider an academic constituency, there were lots of NCUC members who might be interested in joining that as one of the 3 constituencies they are entitled to join within the NCSG structure.

But you are right, despite the many members NCUC has, it does have trouble getting more than a handful to be active.  So the idea might be wrong for our time.

As for the academic, we had the chance to submit comments.  You could have written something up and tried to get support from the constituencies or SG.  I did submit one, but I think it was an approach that differed from yours, so I never tried to get support.  Then again, roberto seemed to be suggesting that the NCSG be the one to do something about it. as in form a constituency.  At the very least, it seems like an open topic and those who want to start one, have my support.

a.



On 29 Jun 2011, at 02:42, William Drake wrote:

> Hi
> 
> On Jun 28, 2011, at 10:47 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> I would like to point out that there is nothing wrong in us helping the commercial actors in the Consumer area to find their way to the CSG.  Just as the CSG has leant a helping hand in the NCSG growth, I think it appropriate that we should now try to help them as much, not only to show our gratitude but also to allow them to experience the same benefits we have found in diversity.
> 
> Diabolical, I love it. Certainly, if there must be a new "consumer" space then it should cut across both SGs.  But I still have to say that after a couple of years of this being on the table I've still not heard a really crisp and clear definition of what it would work on substantively that isn't already being followed, however unevenly, by existing groupings and people.  Maybe if there's a new construction with a big sign it will draw new bodies into the ICANNsphere and increase the level of engagement on a distinctive set of issues, but one does have to wonder...
> 
> More generally, while I take Avri's earlier point that irrespective of what we were discussing in the past re: focusing on interest groups, 
> 
>> Constituencies mean Nomcom committee seats and the possibility of filling comments that the Board is willing to read because they are from a known entity, and because any resources from ICANn will be given to constituencies
> 
> I'm still having difficulty getting my head around the substantive arguments for proliferation.  The Academic Constituency concept is a case in point.  Unless we're talking about higher ed operational issues (which presumably would fit in NPOC), what set of GNSO-related issues are specific and distinct to academics and not addressed by NCUC?  If, alternatively, having distinctive issues to work on is unnecessary and we're viewing constituencies more as sort of affinity subgroups, here too I have to wonder about the need.  Academics, including those here, have a variety of intellectual/political orientations and areas of specialization, there's no particular "academic perspective" that needs to represented and isn't now, and we already work together in NCUC.  As to the Avri's organizational points, we already don't have enough time to file comments and having a constituency might not change that, and resources have hardly flowed to our existing constituency (whereas I couldn't help noticing Danny Younger saying on an ALAC list that At-Large and ALAC Support Activities are budgeted at $5,427,000…).  The Nomcom committee seat case is more obvious; there was recently a brief discussion (i.e. about three emails) concerning the "academic" slot on the nomcom, which someone in the ALACsphere argued had to remain set aside only for university network administration folks…I pointed out that academia's a bit broader than that but nobody replied so voila it stayed that way….  
> 
> Anyway, if people decide they really want to do it I imagine I'd join an Academic Constituency, but first wouldn't it be useful to specify the potential benefits of launching multiple constituencies in NCSG…?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 28 Jun 2011, at 16:12, mary.wong at law.unh.edu wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi - I support the concept of a CC in both the CSG and the NCSG. Not that it's NCSG business to push for one in the CSG, but the possibility should clear the way for a purely NC CC to be formed within the NCSG. If one does eventually form within the CSG, the two CCs could work together to advance a fuller consumer agenda and awareness. For now, the CC that could form within the NCSG will have to follow both the newly-approved constituency formation process AND abide by the new NCSG Charter (once formally approved by the NCSG membership).
>>> 
>>> On a possible Academic Constituency, Rosemary and I thought it would make sense given (1) the number of individuals that are academics and researchers who span a number of specialty areas, from technical to law to political science and who are already involved in NC issues; (2) the possibility that NCSG members can join more than one constituency; (3) the possibility that some academics and researchers may wish to be more closely associated with an Academic Constituency than any other and so choose to join that rather than, say, NCUC or CC; (4) the indications from the Board, Nom Com etc. that greater academic participation at ICANN is to be welcomed; and (5) the value that an Academic Constituency may be able to provide, in the form of papers, public comments and so on.
>>> 
>>> Rafik, since you were the NCSG Councilor the Board thought would be the one to reach out to the academic community, I'd be interested (like Rosemary) to hear your thoughts as I don't want to impose or tread on anyone's turf either.
>>> 
>>> Hope everyone who was in Singapore had a productive meeting and an enjoyable visit, and are safely home without suffering too much jet lag!
>>> 
>>> Mary
>>> 
>