Interesting point of view.  This interprets the SGs as rather "less" than I
thought they were intended to be, but perhaps this is just a learning
process on my part.

I guess I'm not used to having "housemates" in the NC world of ICANN,
especially when they barge in and start rearranging the furniture without
asking.

Also, IIRC NCUC-ers generally weren't entirely pleased with the NCSG
charter in the first place, so perhaps this is another reflection of that
displeasure.  Perhaps the charter *should* have precluded official
constituency-branded communications outside the SG (free speech is an
individual right, not necessarily an institutional right, unless you
consider institutions to be people -- and that [corporate personhood, etc.]
is itself a matter of contention amongst many in civil society).  The point
is not the individual expression, but rather the institutional branding of
that expression in an institutional representative context.

Is there a process for amending the charter?  If so, would there be
interest in adding this provision to it?

I'm not sure I particularly like the sub-lease for this housemate arrangement.

But, if the new housemate is going to play hardball, I guess we have to
play hardball in response.

Whether we will "learn to live with each other with the same degree of
harmony" remains to be seen.  It takes two to tango.  The new housemate
seems to like to dance alone, and consistently spurns advances to dance
together, whatever disingenuous rhetoric may be spouted along the way, when
they choose to communicate directly at all.

Living together in harmony requires a good-faith attitude on all sides.
Still looking for the good faith, here.  The focus seems to be so much on
the differences and independence and so little on common interests and
engagement in relationship-building.

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 4:46 PM -0500 12/18/11, Avri Doria wrote:
>On 18 Dec 2011, at 16:27, Dan Krimm wrote:
>
>> It certainly doesn't speak to a "consensus" process within NCSG, if NCSG
>> constituencies are going off willy-nilly and offering independent policy
>> positions outside of ICANN.
>
>True, but Constituencies are the prime locus of opinion within the GNSO,
>with SG as the aggregating points providing the administrative function
>for electing council members and other GNSO functions.  Nothing in the
>NCSG charter speaks about any prohibition on actions taken by a
>constituency either within of outside of ICANN.
>
>I tend to see the NCPH as being a house divided by commercial and non
>commercial, with each house divided into its own political factions.  At
>this point we have only 2 factions while our housemates. have 3 factions.
>But our factions have not yet learned to live with each other with the
>same degree of harmony as our commercial housemates.  I think that within
>NCSG we are different wings within the same SG and are entitled to do
>anything the NCSG charter plus the ICANN bylaws plus other laws don't
>prohibit.
>
>The freedom to send a political letter to national or international
>leaders seems like it has to be within the list of things that are
>acceptable. And I would think NCUC, whose principle value seems to be
>Freedom of Expression would have to support this, even for opinions we
>don't support.
>
>avri
>
>
>avri