Hi,
I think I disagree with your prescription and would not want to be a
member of the NCSG your note presages, but that is irrelevant.
The charter can be amended as stated in the charter. I
recommend you organize an ad-hoc interest group to change it and see if
you can get the votes in NCSG and the Board approval.
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Charter
> 5.0 Amendments to the NCSG Charter.
>
> Proposals to amend this charter may be submitted by five (5) percent
> of the then‑current members eligible to vote, based on the weighted
> voting as defined in section 4.0. Proposals may also be put forward
> by the NCSG‑EC or the ICANN Board of Directors or one of the Board's
> committees.
>
> Amendments proposed by the NCSG members or the NCSG‑EC will only take
> effect after there has been a membership review, approval by 60% vote
> of NCSG members using the weighted voting defined in section 4.0 and
> final review/approval by the ICANN Board of Directors. Amendments
> proposed and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors or one of its
> Committees will only take effect after membership review and approval
> by 60% vote of the NCSG members using the weighted voting defined in
> section 4.0. The ICANN Board may require proposed amendments to be
> posted for public comment prior to taking its decision on the
> proposal.
In the meantime, I hope more people can get involved in using the
features and structure of the NCSG we have.
Oh, and I repeat something I have said often before, any group that
wants to create a new constituency has my offer of help with the process.
avri
Ps. As for biting off of heads. I have only seen that once, a cat I had
used to bite the heads off of the lizards while I was living on Kibbutz
in the 1970s. When thinking about it, it is not something I see myself
doing.
On 22-Sep-14 11:56, Martin Pablo Silva Valent 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. 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 other words, what we call constituencies in this case should be
> the main consensus builder, since they are the closest to the
> stakeholders. Having the NCSG build consensus for them does not
> really make it rough, it makes it confusing by disregarding the real
> stakeholder group voice, the constituencies voice. The NCSG should be
> the result of the different consensus reached in the constituencies.
> I can understand creating new constituencies for a better structure,
> but I cannot see useful to have individual members in the NCSG that
> don’t belong to either NCUC or NPOC, if another constituency is
> necessary to hold another specific type of voices then another one
> should be build.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> 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 12:23 GMT-03:00 Rafik Dammak <[log in to unmask]>:
>
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> I hope that I can clarify the situation here for you . as laywe, I
>> think you will find some time to read the NCSG charter which
>> explain the principles and give you better understanding :
>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Charter
>>
>> I just never fully understood why NCUC and NPOC do not handle their
>> own
>>> application process.
>>>
>>
>> NCUC and NPOC handle their applications process, NCSG only approve
>> NCSG members who may or not want to join constituencies, it is up
>> to NCUC and NPOC to approve them as their members.
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> yes we need NCSG, in fact constituencies cannot exist without it,
>> they can be created and disbanded while the SG remains. it is not
>> just in umbrella, a concept which may lead to the misunderstanding.
>> it has the committees populated with representation from
>> constituencies and also elected officers like the NCSG chair and
>> also the election of GNSO councillors to represent the whole
>> stakeholder group.
>>
>> I think you observed several times how many policies are discussed
>> and statement done at the SG level.
>>
>> the stakeholder group model also exist in other parts of GNSO such
>> the contracted party (registries and registrars )where there is no
>> constituency per se.
>>
>> 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?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> there is confusion here, a NCSG member can be just a NCSG member
>> without joining constituencies or joining both or just 1 ot them .
>> joining a constituency may be important for a member to work on
>> some topic if s/he wants but it is not mandatory. there is no
>> double representation but more diversity of representation and
>> affiliation. I don't think you disagree with this.
>>
>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> if NCUC or NPOC want to make their statements or own positions,
>> they are not prevented to do so. having NCSG ensure having a more
>> common positions and avoid building silos that won't communicate
>> with each other and weaken them . at NCSG we work to build a
>> position that have consensus of larger group, don't you think that
>> is really strong? constituencies can also send their own statement
>> to defend other points than a common position if they want.
>>
>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> the constituencies have the same representation in the executive
>> and policy committees, so they are able to provide their positions
>> via their representatives who should liaise with their
>> constituencies, in particular for the latter regarding the
>> policies. at NCSG ,we allow all members to communicate and debate
>> together and so avoid a silo effect that will prevent members of
>> different groups from discussing with each other.
>>
>> we have real bottom-up process here: the individual and
>> organizational members who can participate directly at NCSG level
>> and expressing their ideas . don't you think that is really
>> powerful and avoid voices trapped in structures level?
>>
>>
>>
>>> Just and idea, don't bite my head off!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> no worry, all comments are welcome, it is learning space for
>> everybody. hope that clarified things for you.
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
