NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0 (Apple Message framework v1076)
Sender:
Non-Commercial User Constituency <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 2 Nov 2009 17:03:02 +0900
Reply-To:
Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>
X-cc:
Rosemary Sinclair <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (37 lines)
On 2 Nov 2009, at 16:39, [log in to unmask] wrote:

> Now I'm not sure ....
>
> when we say "integrated stakeholder group model that the Board and  
> SIC endorsed at Seoul" is this the same as outlined in the  
> Transitional Charter that I have burnt into my memory banks
>
> We have NCSG encompassing a number of Constituencies
>
> And a "pathways" system of Interest Group which may turn into  
> Constituencies....or not
>
> But according to the Charter it is the Constituencies that have  
> Rights and Responsibilites

as things are currently defined in the byLaws, that is right, it is  
board chartered constituencies that have Nomcom and PDP rights.  we  
need to see where things land as the Council's Work teams work through  
it all.  for me, though an full fledged Interest group and a  
constituency differ only in respect to requiring the Board's blessing  
of the charter.  the both need to be active contributing entitles  
before they are marked as real.

>
> Maybe there is a doc I don't have....

Probably not. then again, new docs spring from ICANN groups like weeds.

>
> At any rate I'm keen to move forward with NCSG and looking fwd to EC  
> helping to progress this!

sounds good.

a.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2