More responses to Adam....

>So why not
>accept the interim and offer to work with the
>board to help identify possible candidates from
>such groups, and to try and bring those groups
>into the NCUC or to encourage them to form a
>constituency (as consumer groups seem to be
>trying to do, can NCUC help them?)

The world's consumer groups are NOT trying to form a constituency. Beau Brendler, who is no longer even associated with a consumer org, may be trying to form one, and Cheryl Langdon Orr, who claims to be associated with a consumer organization in Australia, would like to form one as a vehicle for putting herself on the GNSO Council, but somehow neither one of this pair could muster a _single_ public comment in their favor from any Consumer organization -- not from the Australian organization CLO claims to be associated with, or from any other. Think about that. 

The point here is that consumer organizations will get involved in ICANN when and if ICANN and its GNSO are capable of doing something that seriously affects their policy priorities. Consumer org involvement will NOT come from artificial attempts to round of names on pieces of paper, subsidized by tens of thousands of your registration fees. 

>And then look to negotiate differences between
>the charters.  

Adam, we have been trying to do that since August of 2008. We have asked ALAC representatives repeatedly for modifications to our charter that would make it acceptable. Nothing was ever produced. We asked repeatedly for an alternative charter that they would support. We asked prior to the Cairo meeting, we asked at the Cairo meeting, etc. etc. 

Simple fact: We are not in a negotiation phase. Thanks to the SIC and staff, we are now in a power/hierarchical decision making mode. SIC/staff think they can get away with ramming this down our throats. They do not understand how seriously this will damage its legitimacy and credibility among noncommercial groups. Some of them are still suffering under the delusion that the 100+ organizations mobilized around this issue are just 

>Can we accept that councillors
>could be selected through a hybrid constituency
>based model, where a general membership selects a
>slate which is then voted on by constituencies in
>an Executive Committee? (just an idea...)

Adam, we can accept any reasonable compromise.  Before there can be compromise there must be a willingness to meet and bargain. That has been absent for months

>Can we come up with
>specific rule based criteria for the creation of
>new constituencies (no one will apply to the
>vague process in the SIC charter, it is no better
>than what we've had since the GNSO was created.)

"We" can come up with all kinds of things. The point is that this is not now, and never has been in "our" hands. So don't raise false hopes. 

>I think we were set back from discussing workable
>compromises when the SIC draft was put forward
>and the NCUC draft effectively taken off from
>discussion.  

And why did that happen? 

>I have heard some people assert that the NCUC has
>never shown any willingness to compromise from
>its criticism of anything that it hadn't written,

Show me another charter, aside from CP80s, that anyone else wrote? 

>yet claiming that the NCUC documents were still
>open to negotiation -- so a public attempt to
>engage in negotiation would at least put this to
>the test.

Are you aware of the "Yonkers" incident? We were approached by staff to hold a meeting to negotiate differences. Despite the fact that this was done in a completely biased way - the staff consulted extensively with Beau and afforded this individual the same status as the entire NCUC, we said we would meet. We even agreed to meet in Yonkers, Beau's home town, despite the fact that we all preferred Washignton as Yonkers added a couple of days to everyone's itinerary. We are not entirely sure of what happened, but the staff just dropped the idea. some of us believe that it was dropped because we asked that Avri Doria, Chair of the GNSO, be included in the meetings. 

>Think there are two options: some form of appeal
>to the Board's decisions, i.e. reconsideration,
>obmudsman (who has the power to open all kinds of
>email trails, discover what documents were
>presented, what was said), or independent review.

My opinion is that this is the only realistic option, now. The Board has made a (bad and wrong) decision. There is nothing to negotiate, it is over with. We can appeal. 

--MM