;)

I will come back with some comments over the weekend

Thank you

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
+506 8335 2487
Enviado desde mi iPhone

> El 10/07/2014, a las 09:28, Sam Lanfranco <[log in to unmask]> escribió:
> 
> Carlos, 
> 
> Questions are never stupid. Answers can be. 
> 
> You are asking one of two important questions. I have only been within NCSG/NPOC for about one year so I will defer to others with regard to opening discussion around "Do we have a basic problem in the narrow definition of the NCSG, which which excludes many alliances we should look for?", and how this relates to the internal organizational landscape of ICANN. 
> 
> The complementary question is how do we (who?) promote wider mobilization and engagement in various policy venues and at various policy levels outside ICANN. For example, there is more power behind a good idea, or to oppose a bad idea, on the ICANN policy agenda when ISOC-CR or ISOC-Canada can say this good idea is backed, or bad idea opposed, by a broad and active coalition of constituencies in Costa Rica or Canada, constituencies who have dealt with their government (GAC member) at home, and are in dialogue with their own domestic commercial constituencies. 
> 
> That is my dos Colones worth of thought here.
> 
> Sam 
> 
>> On 10/07/2014 10:54 AM, Carlos Raúl G. wrote:
>> Sam, 
>> 
>> I have a few stupid questions as a newcomer: non-for-profit registries like PIR, which supplies ample resources to keep the Intenet open, like ISOC, are part of the contracted parties SG, While final users "represented" by many ISOC           chapter delegates gravitate towards ALAC.
>> 
>> Do we have a basic problem in the narrow definition of the           NCSG, which which excludes many alliances we should look for?
>> 
>> Best
>> 
>> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
>> +506 8335 2487
>> Enviado desde mi iPhone
>