Mime-Version: |
1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3) |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes |
Date: |
Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:44:10 -0400 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On 12 Aug 2009, at 10:02, William Drake wrote:
> I guess the quotes mean that our constituencies are not true
> constituencies in the ICANN sense. But this is odd, since we
> ultimately conceded that, "The procedures for becoming a Board-
> recognized Constituency within the NCSG are contained in the ICANN
> Bylaws and other procedures approved by the Board." Also odd is the
> statement that they'd have no electoral or voting functions, when we
> say,
BTW: yes, i acknowledge that the recent version of the NCSG do accept
the notion of Board approved constituencies. as time goes on in the
re-negotiation for a future SG charter, I think the SG, once formed,
should consider whether it wants to go back to the the original
version that defined constituencies (i think i was using the term soft
constituencies a year ago) in similar fashion to that used by the
Registries SG for their interest groups.
a.
|
|
|