On 22-Sep-14 11:18, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>> Why do people need to be NCSG first?
>>
> 
> 
> Because that is the way the SG was redesigned and chartered after the
> last GNSO review.
> 
> Brief history
> 
> 
> We wanted a Cthat had no constituencies, just small more ad hoc

Note: Cthat is not a new Acronym that i did not explain.  it is a
deletion typo.  it should say

wanted a NCSG that had no constituencies &c.

> interests groups that could come and go as the interests came and went.
> 
> The powers that were in the SIC (Board Structural Improvements
> Committee, i think) said no.  they said: Thou shalt have constituencies.
> 
> So we came up with a compromise structure were we could have as many
> constituencies as we wanted, and any NCSG member could join up to three
> of them (if of course we ever have more than 3)
> 
> In presentations at the time we used to talk about 7 constituencies (a
> number greater that the number of council seats), all very light weight
> and able to blink into existence and back out of existence with fair
> ease.  Once we were done with the procedures and with negotiating with
> BoardStaff, the constituencies did not end up as light as we wanted.
> 
> But the main principle in the design of the NCSG is that people join the
> SG and vote at the SG level and don't even have to join constituencies
> if they don't want.  The constituency main role, so to speak, is to
> draft position papers in relation to the calls that come out from every
> PDP.  And they get budget.
> 
> So the carter states that one must be a member of the NCSG in order to
> then join up to 3 NCSG constituencies.
> 
> Some of us, e.g. me, were in favor of starting up all sorts of
> constituencies.  Some of is. e.g. others, were against it because it was
> too much process overhead.  So here we sit with two constituencies and
> one fairly defunct candidate constituency.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> On 22-Sep-14 10:41, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>>
>> I just never fully understood why NCUC and NPOC do not handle their own
>> application process.
>>
>>
>> Why do people need to be NCSG first?
>>
>>
>> It would seem more useful that the NCSG where just an umbrella for NPOC and
>> NCUC to help coordinate the NCUC and NPOC leaders.
>>
>> The present way of having NCSG members that are also NCUC and NPOC creates
>> a double representation that can be confusing, misleading and
>> dysfunctional. Am I clear with this idea?
>>
>>
>> I think the NCSG should not act like a stakeholder itself but as a
>> coalition of the stakeholder that make part of it, therefore, the NCSG
>> would just be the place where NCUC and NPOC community leaders meet to take
>> things up. If not, it seems that the decision made in the NCUC or in NPOC
>> through the consensus are not valued. It makes no sense that the same
>> members that debate and reach consensus in NCUC and NPOC separately are the
>> ones that debate about the same decision and reach a new and different
>> consensus in the NCSG. The decision of NPOC and NCUC should be considered
>> equal inside the NCSG and the NCSG decision should be a higher hierarchy
>> consensus that brings together the already consensus made in NCUC and NPOC
>> (a consensus of consensus in an upper level than the bottom stakeholder). I
>> believe than the current process takes away consensus from the real
>> bottoms, NPOC and NCUC, and brings a dysfunctional dynamic where NCUC and
>> NPOC voices, especially NPOC’s, are diluted for no real reason thanks to a
>> double representation of NCUC and NPCO members in the NCSG as NCSG members.
>>
>>
>> Just and idea, don't bite my head off!
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>>
>> Martín.
>>
>> Martín P. Silva Valent
>> Abogado / Lawyer
>> +54 911 64993943
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>> --------------------------------------------
>>
>> Este email, incluyendo adjuntos, podría contener información  confidencial
>> protegida por ley y es para uso exclusivo de su destinatario. Si  Ud. no es
>> el destinatario, se le advierte que cualquier uso, difusión, copia o
>>  retención de este email o su contenido está estrictamente prohibido. Si
>> Ud.  recibio este email por error, por favor avise inmediatamente al
>> remitente por  teléfono o email y borre el mismo de su computadora. / This
>>  e-mail, including any attachments, may contain information that is
>> protected by  law as privileged and confidential, and is transmitted for
>> the sole use of the  intended recipient. If you are not the intended
>> recipient, you are hereby  notified that any use, dissemination, copying or
>> retention of this e-mail or the  information contained herein is strictly
>> prohibited. If you have received this  e-mail in error, please immediately
>> notify the sender by telephone or reply  e-mail, and permanently delete
>> this e-mail from your computer system.
>>
>> 2014-09-22 11:10 GMT-03:00 Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>:
>>
>>> agree completely.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>> On 22-Sep-14 04:40, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>>> Which brings me to one technical issue I've been harping about
>>>> to various people privately for some time: I see little point
>>>> in maintaining three distinct member databases, when two
>>>> are (required to be) subsets of the third. It would be much
>>>> easier to maintain just NCSG member database and have
>>>> constituency membership there as an attribute
>>>> (of course still leaving it up to each constituency to
>>>> decide who they accept as their members, they just would
>>>> not need to maintain members' contact info &c separately).
>>>> This would make for an easy workflow for the three ECs,
>>>> one place for members to check their membership details, &c.
>>>
>>
> 
>