hi,

One correction if I may be so bold

> However, the noncommercial users constituency (NCUC) was outnumbered
> by commercial user constituencies 3 to 1, and thus had no influence
> whatsoever.

now the Non Commercial are outnumbered at the Stakeholder Group level 3:1

then the Non Commercial was outnumbered at the Constituency level 5:1

avri


On 22-Sep-14 13:14, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Martin Some useful history for you. Prior to the GNSO reorganization,
> constituencies _were_ the basic organizational units of the GNSO.
> However, the noncommercial users constituency (NCUC) was outnumbered
> by commercial user constituencies 3 to 1, and thus had no influence
> whatsoever.
> 
> In order to balance representation, some board-inspired reforms came
> up with the idea of broader stakeholder groups, which would be
> balanced between contracted parties (registrars and registries) and
> non-contracted or “user” parties (commercial and noncommercial
> stakeholder groups).
> 
> Under the new system Stakeholder Groups (SGs) became key units of the
> ICANN regime and as such commanded certain staff and support
> resources. We told ICANN staff at the time that it made no sense to
> continue to have constituencies AND SGs. Indeed, none of the
> contracted parties have “constituencies” any more. NCUC fought like
> hell to have an integrated SG so that we could avoid the
> organizational complexity and end user confusion that would come from
> a two-tiered process. We only partially succeeded, due to some really
> silly political reasons that we don’t have time to go into here.
> 
> One of the problems with constituencies is that if you succeed in
> creating one, you command support resources. So there is kind of an
> artificial incentive to break off from larger groups and form your
> own “constituency” so that you can be its officer and get travel
> support and whatever. In the commercial SG, which already had 3
> existing constituencies, they refused to dissolve into the larger SG.
> As a result, Commercial SG constituencies have turned into protected
> fiefdoms which have actually outlawed the creation of any new
> constituency groupings that are not approved by the existing ones!
> 
> There are, in fact, no significant differences in the issue and
> policy perspectives of NPOC and NCUC. NCUC admits individual users,
> but most of its members are still organizations – and NPOC could
> decide to admit individual users tomorrow.
> 
> I think your analysis of the problem has it backwards. The
> constituencies are the problem, not the SG structure. We should
> abolish constituencies, as the contracting parties already have. We
> should have an integrated SG, and allow ad hoc interest groups to
> form within it around specific policy issues
> 
> The best way to resolve these problems is to dissolve constituencies
> altogether and make the noncommercial/civil society presence in GNSO
> an integrated Noncommercial Stakeholders Group.
> 
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> Of Martin Pablo Silva Valent Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 11:57
> AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] New
> member admission process and member databases
> 
> 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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.
> 
> 
>