The idea of forming new constituencies is great and should be welcomed as this is part of expanding NCSG's membership and having more individuals and/or organisations joining and contributing to ICANN policies. The main issue, I guess, revolves around the premise that new constituencies will be based on. My main problem with NPOC - and this is something that has already been reiterated by other members in this discussion thread - is that its premise is based on a disagreement with the way some policy issues have been dealt with. I would really discourage such an approach; disagreement and debate is part of creating great policy and certainly there will be issues that a group which lists 200 members will not be able to agree on. Should this mean that every time there is disagreement, anyone can suggest the formation of a new constituency? Or should this mean that we follow standard democratic processes with the majority determining how NCSG will be represented? I would really like to see us engaging in a substantive debate and discussion on the various issues and continue to work together to better promote multistakeholderism in ICANN as well as non-commercial interests.

KK

Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,

Law Lecturer,
Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses
Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law
University of Strathclyde,
The Law School,
Graham Hills building, 
50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA 
UK
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765
Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
Website: www.komaitis.org
 


-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dan Krimm
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 5:46 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: NPOC Q&A Document

This seems reasonable to me, simply as criteria for NCSG membership per se.

But the issue at hand was ultimately about forming separate formal
constituencies within NCSG, especially if those constituencies ended up
having a de facto litmus test on important issues (even if the wording is
clever enough to avoid stating it outright and just use some sort of
code-talk to get the point across, which makes the litmus test even more
insidious, especially if the litmus test itself is intrinsically driven by
commercial interests).

The problem with the NPOC is that it makes itself out to be a group defined
by an issue *space* ("operational issues"), whereas it really seems to be
defined by an issue *position* in disguise ("one-sided advocacy for strong
DNS protection and enforcement tools for TM owners").  The definition of
space has the effect of defining strong preferences on the issues, and the
space seems carefully chosen to yield those positions.  Would the claim be
that these position preferences are "side effects"?  That claim is not
compelling to me.

This NPOC description has a certain disingenuous feel to it, and suggests a
finesse rather than an honest presentation of the fundamental mission of
the group, like they're trying to sneak something in under the radar.

Also, how does forming a separate constituency group alter the voting and
issue representation dynamics within NCSG?  Does this group end up having
disproportionate influence as a separate group than it would have if all
voting NCSG members were together in a single pool, and simply formed
informal coalitions on the basis of their agreement on individual issues
(one org, one vote)?  Is this a strategy to acquire more powerful
collective representation through structural means (cf. 2 senators from
every state, no matter how small, even those that are only populous enough
to have a single representative in the House)?

I have my answers for these questions.  The reader may come to one's own
answer on one's own recognizance.

Dan


--
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.



At 11:39 AM +0800 11/10/10, David Cake wrote:
>At 10:28 AM -0500 9/11/10, Avri Doria wrote:
>>Hi,
>>
>>I am not personally advocating for thick WHOIS.  I am in fact
>>against it as a matter of personal opinion.
>>
>>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.
>
>	I agree with Avri. The NCSG is, and must be, a broad tent,
>because membership is based on organisational structure and goals.
>The two organisations within the NPOC that we know of, the American
>Red Cross and Association of American Medical Colleges, are clearly
>not commercial, and so clearly belong within NCSG.
>	Not every non-profit organisation belongs in NCSG (Rosemary
>has already nominated ATUG, a NFP with primarily commercial
>membership, I would strongly put organisations such as INTA in that
>same category and absolutely reject their entry into NCSG - not for
>profit and non-commecial are different issues), but there will be
>NCSG members whose policy positions do not happen to agree with
>current NCUC majority/leadership positions, and we have to have
>processes that reflect and embrace that.
>
>	I honestly think these organisations belong within NCUC as
>well, despite their policy differences with NCUC majority opinions. I
>do appreciate that this makes things difficult for both NCUC
>leadership and the organisations in question, but I think that is a
>flaw in the Constituency system.
>
>
>>I do  think, however, that a good debate on the subject of thick
>>WHOIS  is a good thing for the NCSG.  In fact I would love to see
>>more substantive reasoned  debates on  issues like this on the NCSG
>>list.
>
>	Absolutely. It is a complex issue, with legitimate concerns
>on both sides. I personally do not favour a thick WHOIS (and any
>version of thick WHOIS that has a chilling effect on legitimate free
>speech is something I would oppose), but I would like to see solid
>policy debate on the issue, and I certainly think NCSG should have
>room for a range of opinions on this issue and others.
>	Regards
>		David