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
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.
>>
>