Just so that any constituencies formed during this transitional/temporary
period are not given any privileged exceptions to any new provisions of
the new charter.

I really wouldn't call that "grandfathering" at all (that term implies
retention of past provisions as exceptions to a new regime, which I would
utterly reject).  The most I would approve of is that if it only takes
small modifications of a constituency's description to adhere to the new
charter it might have a more streamlined re-application process.

Also, can someone tell me if NCUC is expected to retain its existence
under NCSG?  My impression was that NCUC would be evaporating, and simply
replaced by NCSG em masse.  OTOH, if something like NPOC would exist, I
might want NCUC to endure so I could be a member of that.

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.



On Thu, November 11, 2010 11:45 am, Rosemary Sinclair wrote:
> so now we have to chat about "grandfathering provisions" and need a new
> clause in the proposed Charter which is clear on our position that any
> Constituency however approved that is a part of NCSG is bound by the
> Charter rules of NCSG....
>
> Rosemary
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NCSG-NCUC on behalf of Alex Gakuru
> Sent: Fri 11/12/2010 3:45 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: SPAM-LOW: Constituencies, old and new
>
> Spot on Milton! See:
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/soac-newgtldapsup-wg/msg00627.html
> It was just after the Board had decided to do away with the work we'd done
> on JAS-WG. However, they later on changed their mind and "encouraged us to
> carry on with the work."
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>  Off list
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* NCSG-NCUC [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf
>> Of *Rosemary Sinclair
>>
>>
>>
>> Hmmm - the way I read our proposed Charter is that a Constituency
>> however
>> formed (whether from within or by direct application to the Board)
>>
>> When it is within NCSG (whether formed from within or attached by the
>> Board)
>>
>> Is then bound by our Charter rules on voting, Councillors etc
>>
>> That would be incorrect.
>>
>> If NPOC is formed under our proposed NCSG charter, then it is bound by
>> our
>> rules on voting, Councillors, etc.
>>
>> But our charter is not in effect yet, and clearly Amber and Debbie are
>> not
>> applying under those rules.
>>
>>
>>
>> So if the constituency is approved before the NCSG charter is approved,
>> we
>> really have no idea how NCSG works.
>>
>> And it is possible, though not likely, that we revert to the old
>> constituency rules, which creates the walled garden/silos.
>>
>> No way around it: Debbie and Amber's move was untimely and not
>> constructive. Even if you like their constituency proposal, the way
>> they've
>> done it creates a mess.
>>
>
>