Avri, thank you - on behalf of all our members - for all the effort you put into this. We would not have gotten this far without you.
 
I think it's a good idea for us to review the proposed constituency process, and put in comments, especially if by participating and providing constructive feedback we are providing the Board, the staff and the community with greater motivation to finally put the charter issue behind us. Also, given that we have several constituencies-in-formation, it makes sense for NCSG to provide input on this.
 
BTW thanks to everyone for their very kind words and congratulations - and my fellow Councilors for their votes! :) - on my election to the Council Vice-Chair position. Although it's meant a multiplication of mailing lists, administrative/procedural questions and even more ICANN-related emails than is probably healthy, I'm learning a lot and I look forward to sharing lessons learnt with you all from this experience.
 
Cheers
Mary


 
 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: [log in to unmask]: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> 


From: Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>
To:<[log in to unmask]>
Date: 2/3/2011 12:05 PM
Subject: Update on NCSG charter.
Hi,

During yesterday's open meeting I was asked to check into the schedule for the NCSG charter and its review before SF.

I communicated with Ray Plzak, the chair of the board's Structural Improvements Committee (SIC).  With the publication of the proposed constituency process for comment <http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-02feb11-en.htm> things have moved a step closer.  He is requesting that the Staff do an edit pass on our charter, as negotiated with the SIC to recommend any necessary changes required by these constituency process requirements.  He is also asking for them to proof our charter to find my remaining typos and inconsistencies.  He has asked that this be done in time so that the community review will be completed before the SF meeting. 

We will have a chance, probably brief given the timing, to review those changes before they go out for community review.  We will, of course, also be able to comment during community review and at the end of the day we will hold our own vote on accepting that charter after it has been approved by the Board. I am very much hoping, and a little bit confident, that at the end of the day we will have an approved charter that allows us to get on with working on policy.

I suggest that people review and comment on the Proposed constituency process.  While It differs somewhat from our language, I believe that it is essentially compatible with our proposed 2 stage process where the SG group has precedence in the decision making while allowing for Board oversight and final approval.

With optimism,

a.


As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: [log in to unmask] For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu