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

[Roberto Gaetano]

Adam: 

> 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? 

The problem before was that the creation of a new constituency was altering
the voting balance of the whole GNSO, so all existing constituencies had
good reasons for blocking new entrants (except if a constituency was sure
that the new one could be a sort of permanent ally, or a clone of itself).
What the BGC WG tried to do, was to build a structure where this opposition
was not inherent in the system. With the stakeholder groups, the only
potentially opposed constituencies to a new entrant because of "power"
reasons are the ones in the same stakeholder group (incidentally, that also
explains why the NCUC proposal is crafted in that way, and not in a way to
favour the creation of a new constituency).

With the Stakeholder-Group-based structure, it is (in principle) possible to
have groups that are homogeneous stakeholders, like academia and research,
user protection organizations, individual (non-commercial) users, etc. It
takes time and effort, but it is possible.


> Is the GA basis for optimism
> <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/>?

This is the latest weekly report on GA mailing activities:
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg02222.html.
The message from Narten is the weekly summary, the 6 messages from Glen are
the weekly ICANN announcements, you can see what else remains after these
routine/admin emails.

Cheers,
Roberto
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 2734 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attachments/20081123/de6c03f0/attachment.dat>