Hi

On Aug 11, 2009, at 11:05 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Note: i was never in favor of constituency-less SG charters, but  
> that is what NCUC bottom up process originally decided on, and as I  
> understand only changed when it became clear that it would not be  
> allowed.  At least not for the NCSG.  I apologize for my role in  
> helping to convince NCUC to back down on that (and some other stuff)  
> - but i never envisioned that the Board would allow it - i was wrong.

Avri, this is not a criticism, just my own puzzlement:  I have never  
entirely understood why you have characterized NCUC as having proposed  
a "constituency-less" charter.  From v. 1 circulated by Milton to the  
list on 9 November last year, there were community-formed, SG-approved  
groupings called constituencies.  If what you mean is that unless the  
board approves them they cannot rightly be considered constituencies  
in the normal ICANN sense (as you note, we changed this pre-Mexico  
when we heard that it was a sticking point in the Board's view) ok I  
get your meaning, but others who are not bylaws-attuned may not  
appreciate that that definitional requirement is the basis of the  
characterization.  Just wondering because the "NCUC vs constituencies"  
framing been central to the little bits of justification we've  
variously been given for what's supposed to be wrong with our  
charter.  Supposedly we somehow wanted to marginalize them in order to  
capture and control, which of course was never the case, so I'm  
skittish about how this gets posed discursively.

Interesting to consider how this issue is addressed in the staff  
summary of the public comment period.  It's characterized as the key  
difference between the NCUC and SIC versions, and staff notes,

'The V-NCSG proposes that all members of the SG - organizations, large  
and small, as well as individuals - become direct members of the NCSG  
while “constituencies” are voluntary self-forming (ad hoc) groupings  
that may be freely formed and dissolved for the purposes of coalescing  
and advancing particular policy positions. In this model,  
constituencies have no electoral or voting functions, per se, within  
the SG.'

I guess the quotes mean that our constituencies are not true  
constituencies in the ICANN sense.  But this is odd, since we  
ultimately conceded that, "The procedures for becoming a Board- 
recognized Constituency within the NCSG are contained in the ICANN  
Bylaws and other procedures approved by the Board."  Also odd is the  
statement that they'd have no electoral or voting functions, when we  
say,

"Constituency Rights and Responsibilities.  Each NCSG Constituency  
shall:
1.            Elect/appoint representative(s) to serve on the NCSG EC;
2.            Nominate candidates and participate in elections for  
GNSO Council Representatives (CR);
3.            Develop and issue policy and position statements with  
particular emphasis on ICANN consensus policies that relate to  
interoperability,
		technical reliability and stable operation of the Internet or domain  
name system;
4.            Participate in the GNSO policy development processes;
5.            Select Nominating Committee delegate(s) as directed by  
the ICANN Board; and
6.            Perform any other functions identified by the ICANN  
Board, GNSO Council, or the NCSG as Constituency responsibilities."

Ok, we don't say each constituency is guaranteed a seat on the council  
per CP80, but the staff version doesn't do that anymore either.  So  
how exactly do we supposedly mess up this singularly important issue?   
By not forcing individuals into constituencies if they want to be in  
the NCSG?

I'm wondering if we shouldn't be trying to address this more directly  
in the letter.  It seems to me that the take off point for Mary's  
excellent draft is procedural, rather than substantive.  We lead with  
a complaint about how our processes and inputs have been ignored:   
Paragraph 1 attributes the board's decision to " continuing  
misperceptions and misinformation about the true extent of involvement  
by non-commercial entities and individuals in the year-long process  
that led to NCUC’s original proposal for an NCSG Charter."  I can  
easily imagine board people thinking, gee we're sorry you feel bad,  
but what matters is the end product, and we don't like yours.

We of course have to make the process points, but since these haven't  
yet swayed them and are unlikely to in the future, might it not make  
sense to get more quickly, and in more detail, to our substantive  
problems with the SIC version?  Right now, that discussion doesn't  
start until page 7.  I recall Milton wrote up some good material a  
ways back on the SIC version's dysfunctional aspects (although the  
wired council seats aspect is no longer operative, at least for the  
first year).  Maybe that could be tweaked and drawn in here?

Bottom line, a priori I would think we are better off emphasizing up  
front that there are reasons why we rejected the sort of model they've  
embraced and would have a hard time operating within it, and then  
addressing afterwards the ways in which we've been mistreated, since  
the latter quite obviously is not dispositive for them.

Bill