[At-Large] NCSG Charter (was: The kiss of death)

[Alan Greenberg]

Although I do not support Danny's choice of rhetoric, I agree with 
the sentiment.

The way to funnel the views (and votes) of multiple constituencies 
into six council voices and votes is indeed not easy. But I feel that 
the solution chosen in this charter, although easy to implement, is 
very far from a good one.

If we want to attract diverse views and groups into this new 
Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, we must provide a mechanism for 
them to participate in deliberations and votes of the GNSO Council.

Alan

At 21/11/2008 12:04 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
>Adam,
>
>Re:  Any comments on the new draft of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group
>petition document?
>
>The charter for the NCSG is an abomination that denies individual 
>constituencies the right to elect their own counselors and to vote 
>their own conscience.  Under Milton's proposal, the NCSG necessarily 
>votes as a block.
>
>This does not serve the interest of many that would otherwise 
>consider joining this "house".  Let me remind you that in the wake 
>of the Registerfly situation, the NCUC did absolutely nothing to 
>protect registrant rights -- they submitted no comments whatsoever 
>during the 18-month long RAA discussions.
>
>Why should the opinions of those that care about registrant concerns 
>be subdued by a majority whose sole interest currently lies in 
>privacy and freedom of expression to the exclusion of all else?
>
>When the notion of a "House" was conceived, the last thing that 
>anyone expected was a home exclusively for Milton's Merry Men.