Hi,

I just watched it and was about to send a message on precisely the  
same point as Avri.  As I said in a comment on Milton's blog post a  
couple weeks ago about the consumer constituency, our letter to the  
board was perhaps a bit confusing on the time frame. We asked that the  
board review the transitional charter and work out an mutually  
satisfactory agreement "within one year" (p.1) or "over the next  
year" (p.4), but of course, we would prefer to do it as soon as  
possible if the board were willing. The launching of constituencies  
could begin promptly after that process has been successfully  
completed.  It is hence unfortunate when the notion of a year's wait  
gets repeated and left on the table, with constituency proponents  
thinking that NCUC wants them to just spin their wheels waiting.

My understanding is that NCUC will meet with the board in Seoul.   
Hopefully at that point we'll put in motion a process to work this  
stuff out, and in the meanwhile we avoid further unneeded conflict  
related to the time frame.

Best,

Bill

PS: Milton it would be helpful for you to post your slides on the NCUC  
site, it'd be good background for new councilors and others.


On Oct 9, 2009, at 10:33 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 9 Oct 2009, at 08:10, Joly MacFie wrote:
>
>> While we did not manage to resolve the differences in the  
>> 'constituency'
>> versus 'broad tent' approaches to the NCSG I think we did find some
>> common ground in agreeing that there are definite flaws in the SIC  
>> proposal,
>> not to mention process.
>
>
> I very much appreciate the opportunity to listen in.  And I think  
> bringing these protagonists together in one room was a great idea.
>
> As for resolving the issues, I think if we bring a few more people  
> into the tent, like some of those on the chat session, we probably  
> can find a way to common ground.  What we really need to count on is  
> someone giving us the time, space and resources to negotiate and  
> work things out.
>
> One point I would like to make.  While the NCUC did request that  
> there be no constituencies approved until the new SG charter was  
> worked out because that would act as forcing function as to the kind  
> of charter that could be worked out.
>
> And while the NCUC did request that the charter negotiation be  
> completed within a year, no one ever said it had to take a year.  I  
> expect it could be completed within weeks if the opportunity and  
> resources for a real sit down negotiation were provided.
>
> This is where the ICANN Policy staff  needs to become an enabler for  
> resolution, as a support to us working out our differences as  
> opposed to acting as a champion for one side or another.  This would  
> be the greatest of changes, one we yet have to see, but one which I  
> hope the new CEO can effect.
>
> I remain forever hopeful that the right conditions can prevail and  
> that the agreement can be reached.  I still think that a coordinated  
> set of civil society groups can be a formidable force inside ICANN.   
> Even if we never will have the money the commercial side does.
>
> a.

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
  Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
[log in to unmask]
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************