Constituencies

[Dan Krimm]

This vision of constituencies seems more along the lines of topic-oriented
working groups.  That is an interesting idea, but maybe we should just call
them internal working groups (I know the term is used more formally for
ICANN processes, and we'd want to distinguish this from that).  But NPOC
seems more like a "faction" than a working group -- i.e., a position-based
tribe rather than an issue-space discussion across all stakeholder
interests within the stakeholder group.

In short, Avri's vision of constituencies seems sort of "orthogonal" to
what is going on with NPOC "versus" NCUC.  There would be no "versus"
between "concern-based" groups, though one might expect a variety of
opinion *within* each working group.

(And, it is my personal opinion that the "operational concerns" part of
NPOC's name is a distracting misnomer -- makes it seem as if it were a
"concern-based" working group when in fact it appears to have a single
unified position on at least one important issue topic: that of the role of
trademark in DNS.  A real "working group" would perhaps address trademark
issues with participation from all viewpoints within the SG as a whole.
But I don't expect NPOC would welcome members who had differing views on
that particular point.  And I'm curious: can NPOC abjectly refuse to admit
NCSG members who might want to become an NPOC member?  That would be
totally at odds with a "concern-based" organizational structure.  Was the
formation of NPOC at root a fudge of these two sharply differing
organizational concepts?)

Is there anything in the charter for SGs generally (and NCSG in particular)
that defines the principles of constituencies either way?  Was there any
"original intent" inherent in the drafting of this structure, either at the
high level where SGs are defined or at the NCSG charter level?

Dan


--
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.



At 1:00 PM -0400 10/24/12, 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.
>>
>>