As another new member, I echo Professor Clifford's comments whole-heartedly. I would only add that simplicity is also valuable, so perhaps there is a way in which the goals of greater membership outreach can be integrated without adding significant complexity to the proposal.

Thank you all.

Jon Garon
Professor of Law



>>> "Ralph D. Clifford" <[log in to unmask]> 11/29/08 5:30 PM >>>

I will weigh in as a very new individual member. I have been lurking on the discussion of the charters, but have not contributed for two main reasons:
 
First, as a new member, I do not have the background and experience with NCUC or ICANN governance as most of the rest of you appear to have. This makes it hard for me to generate substantive comments as I do not have the institutional background to understand all of the consequences of a charter.
 
Second, the discussion itself is very off-putting. There appears to be considerable "bad blood" among others on the discussion group. Frankly, I'm not sure that I want to join in on one side or the other only to inherit these ill-feelings.
 
The bottom line is that ICANN is not perceived to be an open organization, nor one that is willing to provide a voice to new users of the Internet and Web. Clearly, the system by which leaders are chosen within NCUC can have a significant impact on whether this changes. As a new member, I would request that the substance of the two drafts be compared and, in particular, comments on how each of the proposed drafts will affect the broadening or narrowing of participation be made. Similarly, if you believe that Milton's proposal is better, please explain why so that those of us who are trying to understand the issues can do so.
-- 
Ralph D. Clifford
Professor of Law