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.