On 22 Sep 2014, at 11:56 pm, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Thanks all for the comments. They were helpful.

I do understand how it works now, what I am saying is that for me it seems dysfunctional, and that NCUC members and NPOC members have different stakes to defend, and creating this third instance (the NCSG) where everything mixes up seems unnecessary messy, although I can see a role of umbrella for the NCSG.

There is a conceptual mistake in the design of the NCSG. NCUC and NPOC are different stakeholders, since they identify different kinds of stakes, the reality of non for profit is completely different from an individual user, even when they are both non-commercial.

	FWIW, of course not for profit organisations can join the NCUC, and many do, and the NCUC has a large organisatonal membership. I represent one, Electronic Frontiers Australia.
	It is simply that many such groups do not consider our primary reason to be involved in the GNSO to be our operational concerns (that is, the issues directly associated with the domains that we register) but the policy concerns related to domain names generally.
	Thinking of NCUC as a stakeholder group for individual users is not correct.

In addition, even though the GNSO demands to have a NCSG, the proper way to deal with this NPOC/NCUC diversity is no to mix them but to allow them to define themselves, something that ion the current process is diluted.

	In my experience, 'siloization' is one of the biggest problems within iCANN, and almost alway reduces the effectiveness of everyone. Voluntarily adding more seems a terrible idea.

	Regards

		David