--- Danny Younger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 
> What troubles me is the rush to meddle in the internal
> affairs of another advisory group and the call for a
> reactionary letter-writing campaign.  
> 
> Would you want the GAC or any other constituent body
> engaging in a letter writing campaign to the NCUC? 
> Would you like it if external interests attempted to
> apply pressure on select NCUC members in order to
> achieve a certain result?

Danny,

You are probably right that it would be a good thing to develop a
comprehensive model, but I'm sure discussions have taken place (at
least for the various constituency inputs on the topic) and the
elements for the NCUC position are there.
 
However, I have a problem when you talk about advisory groups (AG)
and keep pairing the GAC and NCUC in your raisoning. NCUC is not an
AG but the GNSO is, in the generic sense. Now would you say, the GAC
did not interfere in the GNSO debate on WHOIS definition, during the
vote, and after the vote of such definition by the GNSO? Apparently,
the GAC liaison is free to participate in all the GNSO council
teleconfs, she was there during the vote and afforded statetements
that could be felt intimidating by some, etc. 

So first, pressure exerted on the GNSO is presure on all GNSO's
constituencies (an AG does not need to get to a specific constituency
level to do that;) second if that kind of pressure initiated even
before the formal vote, during an internal GNSO process, was aimed at
putting in minority a position defended by one constituency, such
constituency, IMHO, is then clearly entitled to take any necessary
and legitimate measures to contain and fight back all manoeuvres
conducted by the AG in question toward that aim. 

Mawaki