> -----Original Message-----
> 
> What I am arguing is that the position itself does not make one unqualified
> for NCSG membership.    I again refer to the model of the NCSG as a broad
> tent for differing opinions from the non-commercial stakeholders.

This is exactly correct. We have already had significant disagreements within NCUC and NCSG about issues such as Whois and trademarks, going back ten years. So there is nothing wrong with individuals or organizations such as Amber or Deborah joining and making the case for those positions. 

What _is_ wrong is for constituencies to be based on policy differences. As David Cake's earlier message said, 

"The NPOCs entire existence appears predicated on the idea 
that if two groups of essentially similar organisations have policy 
differences, the only possible solution is to leap immediately to 
forming a new Constituency."

Once that principle gets established, then we could have literally 30-50 different "constituencies" because the noncommercial groups in different parts of the world or with different ideologies all have different policy positions and perspectives. And none of them would have to talk to each other or work together, they would simply go for their own guaranteed seats on the Council etc. 

And if you _don't_ end up with all these constituencies then at some point you have to impose a cutoff that arbitrarily privileges those constituencies that happened to be formed first, and penalizes those that want to be formed later. 

This is why the NCUC leadership opposed the Constituency-silo model from the beginning. It doesn't scale, and it prevents rational policy development.