Thanks for sharing the history behind this Milton as I figured there has to
be one ;)

Cheers!

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 22 Sep 2014 18:14, "Milton L Mueller" <[log in to unmask]> 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]
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
> 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]>:
>
>  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]>:
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>