On 13 Oct 2009, at 10:22, William Drake wrote:

> Hi
>
> On the one hand, they refer to the charter as transitional.  On the  
> other, they want approval of the CC in the near future, which very  
> well may lock us into it.
>
> To the extent that SIC seems set on doing it, it might not be  
> productive in terms of our larger agenda to spend scarce political  
> capital arguing against a CC as a matter of principle.  But we  
> clearly should continue to press the points that a) it should be  
> delayed until the charter issue has been resolved, and b) it should  
> only comprise non-commercial actors.

what do you mean by non commercial:

a- that the organization be non profit
b- that their membership be non profit


i would recommend adding consideration of:

c: That they have consulted with the consumer protection constituents  
already in the NCUC and can show why this is not duplication
d. That they be able to show that they are already viable in terms of  
having an active membership and an email list and have started  
creating postions and having enough people to start really  
contributing to the working groups
e. That the new charter be again put out for review before final Board  
approval

(these are the kind of things that i think should be standard for all  
new constituencies)

One thing to point out is that having appointed the council member  
from that constituency, there is no rush - they have their seat at the  
table and have been called on to create the constituencies.  To  
immediately create the constituencies without building time seems to  
go against what they said they were going to to.  Let the chosen  
representatives start leading a pre-constituency (like the city TLD  
constituencies have.

Also I think it is important to point out that there is no need to  
wait a year to until the SG charter is worked out - with the  
participation of these representatives of potential constituencies  
negotiations can start immediately.

> On the latter, in a discussion on the ALAC list, Roberto argued that  
> "if the objective is ultimately to build a consumer constituency,  
> the president of the largest consumer organization worldwide could  
> be a good starting point" (?!).

Nothing to argue against 'could be'

>  Again, INTUG has long acted as a leading business lobby for major  
> transnational corporations, although it now comprises national  
> associations that include noncommercial orgs too http://intug.org/members/our-members 
> .  Click through the membership lists for those associations and you  
> will find a lot of entities that should be in the CSG, not the  
> NCSG.  It would be entirely reasonable to insist on that should the  
> issue arise.

What is the overall balance between C and NC organizations?


a.