[EURO-Discuss] Staff summary of charter public comments

[William Drake]

Perhaps of interest...

Begin forwarded message:

> From: William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
> Date: August 3, 2009 4:53:48 PM GMT+02:00
> To: NCUC Members List <NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
> Subject: Staff summary of charter public comments
>
> Hi,
>
> Now available for your reading pleasure at http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/pdfxiUwB0LQJc.pdf 
> .  Especially enjoyable is section 1, "The perceived failure by  
> ICANN to accept the V-NCSG Charter."  "Perceived" is a leitmotif;  
> NCUC's members and supporters have all just imagined the problems.   
> Ultimately, the rationale for rejecting NCUC's NCSG charter comes  
> down to this, "The S-NCSG follows the Board‟s direction that the  
> Constituency is the primary organizational unit within SGs and, as  
> such, they are its only legitimate members."  However, this  
> apparently applies only to our charter, as the Registry and  
> Registrar group charters do away with "the primary organizational  
> unit within SGs."
>
> Also of interest is this nugget:
>
> "Finally, although the majority of comments were strongly in support  
> of returning to the original NCUC Charter version, ALAC favored the  
> SIC‟s NCSG Charter that, “best meets the aims of the new GNSO  
> Model and the Boards criteria, which we support, and believe is  
> (with the additional version changes as at July 19th ) being  
> essentially met.” Continuing in this vein, ALAC noted, “Maturity  
> and development of the new design GNSO and specifically the parity  
> and viability of the User House will benefit greatly with the  
> „fresh start‟ this Charter in our opinion provides and it should  
> be noted that in it we can see that the opinions and views brought  
> forward in our processes, activities and meetings on the matter have  
> been recognised, heard and considered.” "
>
> Which is interesting since there's been almost no discussion within  
> ALAC since it's last statement on a prior version of the NCUC  
> proposed, http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters/msg00020.html 
> , which noted that there was no ALAC consensus on the matter.  It is  
> rather unclear on what grounds staff can depict Cheryl's personal  
> statement as a collective ALAC position, other than political  
> convenience.
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
>  Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
> ***********************************************************