NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Alex Gakuru <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Alex Gakuru <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:59:02 +0300
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1393 bytes) , text/html (3418 bytes)
Spot on Milton! See:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/soac-newgtldapsup-wg/msg00627.html
It was just after the Board had decided to do away with the work we'd done
on JAS-WG. However, they later on changed their mind and "encouraged us to
carry on with the work."


On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>  Off list
>
>
>
> *From:* NCSG-NCUC [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf
> Of *Rosemary Sinclair
>
>
>
> Hmmm - the way I read our proposed Charter is that a Constituency however
> formed (whether from within or by direct application to the Board)
>
> When it is within NCSG (whether formed from within or attached by the
> Board)
>
> Is then bound by our Charter rules on voting, Councillors etc
>
> That would be incorrect.
>
> If NPOC is formed under our proposed NCSG charter, then it is bound by our
> rules on voting, Councillors, etc.
>
> But our charter is not in effect yet, and clearly Amber and Debbie are not
> applying under those rules.
>
>
>
> So if the constituency is approved before the NCSG charter is approved, we
> really have no idea how NCSG works.
>
> And it is possible, though not likely, that we revert to the old
> constituency rules, which creates the walled garden/silos.
>
> No way around it: Debbie and Amber’s move was untimely and not
> constructive. Even if you like their constituency proposal, the way they’ve
> done it creates a mess.
>


ATOM RSS1 RSS2