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

[Alan Greenberg]

I think that this is one thing that the BGC proposal got right. New 
constituencies (in the traditional context, not those in the NCSG 
charter) will only come into being if ICANN puts significant effort 
into helping to create them and to ongoing support. These words were 
in the BGC proposal, although I have not seen much substance behind 
them yet. But with some support, there are groups out there who will 
care. Perhaps more so in the other SG, but in the NCSG as well (or so 
I believe).

Alan

At 22/11/2008 02:27 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
>Then now would be a good time to draft an amendment, or additional petition.
>
>The GNSO has always been open to the possibility of new 
>constituencies <http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-5.4> 
>and no one bothered to try and create an individual users 
>constituency. So what makes you think it's possible to organize such 
>a group now? Is the GA basis for optimism 
><http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/>?
>
>Adam
>
>
>
>At 4:19 PM -0500 11/21/08, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>>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.
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>At-Large mailing list
>>At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>
>>At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>At-Large mailing list
>At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
>At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org