Regarding constituencies versus interest groups, I believe that the
Charter and the Stakeholder Group will be stronger if we have the
flexibility to form interest groups on a more fluid basis than
Constituencies have offered in the past.  I think Constituencies have
often served as silos, hindering consensus-building and changing too
slowly to reflect the dynamics of interests in Internet communications
and technology.  They focus us on exclusive definitions rather than
inclusion of those who want to contribute.

I support the concept of Interest Group as described in the current draft.

--Wendy


Avri Doria wrote:
...
>>
>> About my comments:  My concern is that we should provide for
>> constituencies and I have inserted constituencies throughout.  The Board
>> continues to recognize the constituency structure and has not indicated
>> the level of support and recognition that will be given to Interest
>> Groups. Since it remains unclear what resources, standing and
>> recognition interests groups will have within the ICANN community (by
>> the Board, Staff, Work Groups/Teams, ACs, other constituencies and SGs,
>> etc.), I think we should continue to recognize and support
>> constituencies and not dissolve them in this charter until the NCSG
>> receives clarity on that point.  I think we may be doing the NCUC and
>> non commercial users a disservice by converting constituencies into
>> Interest Groups without considering the ripple effect.  While those of
>> you who have been involved with ICANN leadership much longer than I may
>> have spoken with Board and staff about this issue, the Interest Group
>> concept is missing from the messaging and documents about ICANN
>> structure and engagement.  
> 
> 
> As was discussed when Rosemary made the same suggestion, the Board has left this up to us.  If this is what the Stakeholder group wants, and this is what I am understanding the consensus to be.  The Board wants to see the charter thatNCSG wants to propose.  The Board has made this very clear in discussion we have had with them - they are not limiting us to the Staff's interpretation of the previous Board's viewpoint.
> 
> I also point out, that 2 Board approved Stakeholder Groups, albeit transitional, already have charters that do not include Board approved Constituencies.  But that is in sense beside the point.  It is up to the consensus of the NCSG membership.
> 
> Additionally as Rafik mentioned in the previous discussion o tis point, in the Stakeholder/Constituencies Work Team, they have left the whole issue of support open for both Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies - the choice being a bottom up choice within each group.
> 
> If I find that after you email, the consensus of the group has changed and people agree with you that we should have constituencies instead of Interest-Groups, I will change the charter accordingly.  However, at this point without some evidence of a changed consensus, I cannot make this particular change.
> 
> As I said it is up to the NCSG  to present the charter it wants to the Board.  Should they decide that they want us to have constituencies, they will send it back telling us so and we can discuss and negotiate with them if we wish.  On the other hand if they accept the charter, as I expect they will, then it is up to the Board, and the staff acting on their will, to make sure that our Stakeholder Group with its Interest-groups get the proper and equivalent level of support.  And it will be up to our leadership to make sure that happens.  That is what it means to have bottom process, approved by the Board and supported by the Staff.
> 


-- 
Wendy Seltzer -- [log in to unmask]
phone: +1.914.374.0613
Fellow, Silicon Flatirons Center at University of Colorado Law School
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
http://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/