Constituencies was Re: [] . Nomination for …

[Milton L Mueller]

Carlos,
You still seem to be laboring under the idea that more academics will get involved in the GNSO if there is a little structure named "academia."
I deny this. It is just false. Some academics get involved because of rights issues, some because they are techies, some because of trademark or naming issues, etc., etc.
If they are noncommercial let them join a NCSG and work within that space on any issue and in coalition with any other stakeholder group as they please. Imposing an organizational structyure on this just confuses everyone and creates artificial incentives to create little power structures that are controlled by small groups of people.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf
> Of Carlos A. Afonso
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 1:15 PM
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Constituencies was Re: [] . Nomination for …
> 
> Taking the "academic/technical community" as example, while I do not
> like the concept as used in the IGF, I think we should consider Avri's
> proposals seriously: *non-profit* constituencies based on concerns
> rather than formal institutional identities.
> 
> The trouble with the "academics" in the formal sense is that several of
> them are executives of businesses, as clearly seen in the MAG and the
> IGF -- so the formal identity might bring to NCSG this "business lobby"
> as well. However, there are several academics who proactively share our
> concerns and are just that, academics (we incidentally have two examples
> from Brazil: Dr Flávio Wagner and prof Carlos Souza).
> 
> We could bring more of them if we had a more specific space in our SG
> along Avri's approach, I think.
> 
> frt rgds
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> On 10/24/2012 03:00 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > There used to be a notion that several would spin out of NCUC as it had
> been the only and omnibus constituency for all Non Commercial groups but
> no longer needed to maintain that function. NCUC serves NGOs, advocacy,
> academia et al, and has participating members of every type of
> NonCommercial.   But the structure became such that NCUC might lose too
> much in the effort to spin out, so people have avoided that.
> >
> > I have always been a pole apart from Milton on this topic and thought of
> NCUC spinning out several constituencies.  I tend to want there to be at least
> 7 constituencies.  I do wish they were somewhat lighter weight, i.e. lighter
> and quicker to form, but that fell were it did.  I actually think the process for
> new constituencies look heavier that it really is.  I like the dea of
> constituencies based on concern as opposed to identity.  Ie. one for
> operational concerns, one for HR advocacy, one for developmental issues,
> one for academic concerns (the Giganet of ICANN), one for ICANN reform, ...
> Remembering that every NCSG member can, according to our charter be a
> member of 3 constituencies.
> >
> > I tend to think the having only 2 is the worse of both worlds.  None and we
> can all work together as we did in the old days - caucusing on various issues
> and coming to the various Points of View. Many and we can form alliances.
> Two tends toward diremption.
> >
> > avri
> >
> >
> >
> > On 24 Oct 2012, at 12:16, Alain Berranger wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks Milton.
> >>
> >> So what are you thinking: would you go as far as no more Constituencies?
> no more Stakeholders' Groups? a completely different model based on
> gTLDs communities? What are the practical alternatives to the current model
> of multiple Constituencies in the same SG? I can think of a few myself, but
> nothing short term and until the GNSO management review is completed,
> structures are better left alone, no?
> >>
> >> Also, I noted the recent and spontaneous early thinking in Toronto during
> our NCSG meetings (notably by David Cake) about the "real" differences
> between NCUC and NPOC (We have all faced that question - Marie-laure and
> I got it from NPOC's session with the Fellows for instance), maybe we should
> work on that, so that we have a clear message out before the inter-sessional
> and Beijing meetings? Also, how about my "old" idea of an Academia
> Constituency somewhere in the future...? I sensed it was not very popular
> but many other MS organizations use a taxonomy that give a specific place to
> Universities/Academics.
> >>
> >> Alain
> >>
> >> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> wrote:
> >> OK, thanks Poncelet. So you are not eligible to run for a NCUC position;
> perhaps you can run for the executive committee of the NPOC. So we will
> remove your name from the NCUC nominations.
> >>
> >> Sorry for the confusion, this is one reason why I am not enthusiastic about
> multiple constituencies in the same SG.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Poncelet Ileleji
> >> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 5:06 AM
> >>
> >>
> >> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] NCUC Nomination for Poncelet
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hello colleagues,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Good day, and thanks for all the feed back, am a member of the NPOC
> constituency and will definitely stick to my membership and role within NPOC
> constituency.
> >>
> >> Thanks Remmy for the nomination and to other colleagues for all the
> views and feed back shared.
> >>
> >> Best Wishes
> >>
> >> Poncelet
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
> >> Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca
> >> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business,
> www.schulich.yorku.ca
> >> Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation,
> www.gkpfoundation.org
> >> NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
> >> Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
> >> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
> >> Skype: alain.berranger
> >>
> >>
> >> AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ
> >> Ce courriel est confidentiel et est à l’usage exclusif du destinataire ci-
> dessus. Toute personne qui lit le présent message sans en être le
> destinataire, ou l’employé(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au
> destinataire, est par les présentes avisée qu’il lui est strictement interdit de
> le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en
> partie . Si le destinataire ne peut être joint ou si ce document vous a été
> communiqué par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ  et détruire
> ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coopération.
> >>
> >> CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE
> >> This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of
> the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone
> other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for
> forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute,
> modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the
> addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error,
> please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies.
> Thank you for your cooperation.
> >>
> >>
> >