[Ec-ncuc] NCSG discussion list

Wed Jul 13 19:22:05 CEST 2011

What if the members of the NCUC EC lightly monitors the list and if any policy issue gets going then the Chair moves this to the SG list?

This is definitely a fucked up thing and the last thing people want are more mailing lists. However, we need to find a way to adapt. I know for a fact that policy discussions are taking place within the NPOC list and I am not sure if members know about the NCSG list. We need to be careful and strategic, but still not sure how to do this.

KK

From: Brenden Kuerbis <bkuerbis at internetgovernance.org<mailto:bkuerbis at internetgovernance.org>>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 18:05:24 +0100
To: Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU<mailto:mueller at SYR.EDU>>
Cc: Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk<mailto:k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk>>, "EC-NCUC at ipjustice.org<mailto:EC-NCUC at ipjustice.org>" <ec-ncuc at ipjustice.org<mailto:ec-ncuc at ipjustice.org>>
Subject: Re: [Ec-ncuc] NCSG discussion list

Would you mind forwarding you email to Avri?  She seems to think the NCUC might be resistant to this change. I think it would help for her to see that NCUC fully supports (and encourage) a SG-wide discussion of policy issues.

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu<mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:
I think this is a potentially confusing and even damaging change that we have to handle carefully.
Members need to know who they are communicating with. Proliferation of lists among casually connected members will confuse them and they are bound to fail to keep up with one of the two lists (NCSG v. NCUC).

IMHO, We want the ?discuss? list to be SG-wide. That is, we want all policy issues to be discussed openly among ALL SG members, and not confined to NCUC members only, and we don?t want NCUC members to start silo-ing off their conversations into a place where others are not accessible. So let?s make the new NCUC list an announce list only ? an official list of NCUC members for voting on any constituency list matters. In some way this will be a problem ? there may be times when the NCUC by itself wants to have a conversation about specific things, but I do fear splitting up our discussions before people are used to the fact that there are multiple constituencies.

Really, this multiple-tiered model is SUCH a fuckedup thing. It only could have been invented by full-time paid staff members with no clue as to how real world civil society people spend their time.

From: ec-ncuc-bounces at ipjustice.org<mailto:ec-ncuc-bounces at ipjustice.org> [mailto:ec-ncuc-bounces at ipjustice.org<mailto:ec-ncuc-bounces at ipjustice.org>] On Behalf Of Konstantinos Komaitis
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 12:20 PM
To: 'Brenden Kuerbis'; EC-NCUC at ipjustice.org<mailto:EC-NCUC at ipjustice.org>

Subject: Re: [Ec-ncuc] NCSG discussion list

I think it is important we do?we need to have a separate list that is archived and all, but we need a separate list for internal purposes. What do other think?

KK

Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,

Senior Lecturer,
Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses
Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law
University of Strathclyde,
The Law School,
Graham Hills building,
50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA
UK
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306<tel:%2B44%20%280%29141%20548%204306>
http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765
Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
Website: www.komaitis.org<http://www.komaitis.org>

From: ec-ncuc-bounces at ipjustice.org<mailto:ec-ncuc-bounces at ipjustice.org> [mailto:ec-ncuc-bounces at ipjustice.org<mailto:ec-ncuc-bounces at ipjustice.org>] On Behalf Of Brenden Kuerbis
Sent: ???????, 13 ??????? 2011 5:16 ??
To: EC-NCUC at ipjustice.org<mailto:EC-NCUC at ipjustice.org>
Subject: Re: [Ec-ncuc] NCSG discussion list

I got no reply to this, so I assume we can go ahead with this renaming of the NCSG-NCUC list to the NCSG list.  The followup question is then - does NCUC want to initiate a separate list for internal constituency business?
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Brenden Kuerbis <bkuerbis at internetgovernance.org<mailto:bkuerbis at internetgovernance.org>> wrote:
Unless there are other suggestions, I'm going to start the process of renaming the NCSG-NCUC-Discuss list to the NCSG-Discuss list.

Does anyone have thoughts about NCUC creating a separate list for its own constituency business?

Thanks,

Brenden

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>>
Date: Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 7:26 PM
Subject: NCSG discussion list
To: Brenden Kuerbis <bkuerbis at internetgovernance.org<mailto:bkuerbis at internetgovernance.org>>

hi,

What do we do to create an NCSG discussion list that does not have the NCUC name in it.  I would like to keep the same list, but I think we ned to rename it.

As to whether NCUC wishes to have a seperate NCUC list, that is up to NCUC itself.

Suggestions?

a.