Hi,

It is not a staff proposal.

It is a proposal which i was part of initiating for how to respond to:

>
> Board resoluion 2008-12-11-02
>
> "that members of the GNSO community work with members of the ALAC/At-
> Large community and representatives of potential new "non-commercial"
> constituencies to jointly develop a recommendation for the composition
> and organizational structure of a Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group
> that does not duplicate the ALAC and its supporting structures, yet
> ensures that the gTLD interests of individual Internet users"


As I indicated in my note to the council on this:

>
> Note: One possible objection is that this discussion is relevant  
> only to the NCSG and not to the rest of the GNSO community and thus  
> there is no role for the rest of the GNSO community or for the GNSO  
> council in this process.    I can certainly see the logic of his  
> view and accept it if it is the predominant view in the council.  I  
> do, however, feel obliged to make sure we have responded to the  
> Board motion, and hence the proposal and the discussion.

I look forward to council discussion on this to determine the right  
course of action for resolving the issues contained in the Board's  
motion and for responding to the Board's motion.  I expect that the  
NCUC council members will give a strong indication of the NCUC's  
preferences in this matter.

As for being on the NCUC list.  As someone who is at the same time an  
academic and a member of several organizations that are NCUC members  
but not an NCUC member per se, I read the list but do not generally  
respond unless directly 'addressed'.  I am grateful I am allowed to  
read the list as email as opposed to having to go to the archive.

As for my reelection;  while I do very much appreciate the  
enthusiastic support of NCUC council members and their nomination for  
my first two terms, just as I very much appreciate having been  
nominated by members of the RrC for the most recent election, I try to  
do the job as openly and fairly as I can without moderating my views  
based on who nominated me.  That does not mean I don't blow it from  
time to time, but when I do it is because I got it wrong and not  
because X or Y supported my nomination.


a.



On 13 Jan 2009, at 12:14, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> So, Avri has replied privately indicating that she is not the author  
> of this proposal, it is a staff proposal and (here she needs to  
> speak for herself) she believes that the structure of a NCSG may  
> indeed be NC stakeholders' business and not the GNSO's business, so  
> this is not as bad as I thought it was. However, we do need to take  
> up with ICANN Staff  exactly what they are trying to do. It's very  
> dangerous and counter productive for staff to pit different GNSO  
> factions and constituent groups against each other and very naive  
> (at best) for them to invite commercial constituencies to play a  
> role in defining the governance structure of noncommercial  
> constituencies.
>
> My apologies to Avri and please don't let my mistake (often it is  
> hard to follow all this stuff accurately) divert anyone's attention  
> from the seriousness of this issue.