NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text 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:
Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 25 Oct 2012 14:29:44 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (13 lines)
> -----Original Message-----
> But the subject of constituencies  came up, as I beleive it should.
> 
> Given the current realities of ICAN support for constituencies and thus given
> that it affords multiple NC voices, support,  and nomcom seats (at least in the
> near future) and other benefits that only accrue to constituencies, I think
> that maintaining an CSG style minimization of constituencies is a bad idea.  

In other words, because ICANN staff had a bad idea 6 years ago and tied resources to it, we should play along? I disagree.
It is only a matter of time before ICANN figures out that the constituency model is not scalable and ceases this support. In the meantime, the less we distort the NCSG with such creatures, the fewer problems we will have. 

When I spoke before the public forum on this topic two board members and one former board member went out of their way to say they agreed with me. 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2