I guess so, so then NCUC followed the precedent newly set by NPOC.

I should have said "previously"...  ;-)

So we're in a new game here, and it's one started by NPOC.  It's worth
asking: is this good for NCSG?

I'm not so sure it is, but then once NPOC unilaterally chooses to go in
this direction, it may be that NCUC has no choice but to follow, or else
allow NPOC (or maybe just "NPOC's leading members") to speak implicitly for
all NCSG, which apparently would not be accurate.

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.  A few more steps in this direction and NCSG
will start to look increasingly like the US Congress at loggerheads...

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 3:51 PM -0500 12/18/11, Avri Doria wrote:
>On 18 Dec 2011, at 15:28, Dan Krimm wrote:
>Hi Dan,
>
>> But I do not make reference to NCUC
>> when I do so, and NCUC has not (to my knowledge) collectively engaged in
>> policy matters outside ICANN,
>
>
>Didn't they follow NPOC's lead, on our behalf, when the NCUC EC decided to
>send a statement on SOPA/PIPA to various national leaders?
>
>How is this different?
>
>avri