In regards specifically to the notion of creating an "academic" constituency 
within the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, it strikes me that there isn't 
really a clear definition of the purpose of constituencies within SGs. The 
purpose of the SGs would appear clear - to provide the GNSO with balanced
(in multiple ways) inputs from various groups whose views are believed to be 
important in reaching suitable compromises on individual issues or balancing 
benefits and detriments between groups across multiple decisions. Whether 
this works or is the right structure is a separate question, at least the 
intent is relatively clearly defined. However, within SGs, the purpose of 
constituencies appears to me to have been pushed as a thing for its own sake, 
perhaps with hidden motives such as attempting to weaken consensus or 
majority dominance within some SGs. But the rationale and the expected 
structure that should emerge within NCSG from the proposed multiple 
constituencies is still unclear. Is it intended that any group with a 
significant common factor should form separate constituencies, with 
individual's and organisation's overlaps between constituencies allowing for 
our multiple facets? I am both an academic researching relevant issues and a 
registrant of a personal domain name, for example.

Or are constituencies supposed to reflect differing types of SG member where 
those different groups share some specific common interest in elements of the 
domain name system? If it's the latter, I do not see an academics group being 
suitable, though as mentioned non-profit/public universities as bodies might 
wish to form their own group or join NPOC (if approved).


-- 
Professor Andrew A Adams                      [log in to unmask]
Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration,  and
Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan       http://www.a-cubed.info/