Well the plan had been for NCUC to dissolve into a variety of smaller constituencies. But that was before ICANN staff and board decided to force us into a constituency structure that provides resources and support to constituencies (instead of the SG). Staff then decides which "constituencies" to support and thus elevate and empower in the policy development process those who hold staff-favored policy positions. NCUC wasn't "commercial" enough for staff and the IP/business community at ICANN, so they plan to create commercial constituencies within NCSG to dilute further the power of noncommercial concerns in policy development. It is the same thing with ICANN's outreach plan: get a group of business people together to develop a plan for outreach to non-commercial users. Of course the outreach focuses on bringing in those actors who will trumpet the business community's goals. Further dilution of noncommercial interests in policy development at ICANN. The rate at which the true noncommercial space is shrinking at ICANN is remarkable. I think we still have to work toward dissolving NCUC into smaller constituencies given the divisive model we are currently forced into. But with the goal posts constantly shifting at ICANN at board/staff whim, we can't really know what to expect or how to grow. The board needs to act on this before it gets worse. Their delay is causing harm for the development of the entire NCSG and undermining confidence and trust in ICANN by global civil society - again.
Best,
Robin
On Nov 11, 2010, at 12:09 PM, Dan Krimm wrote:
> Just so that any constituencies formed during this transitional/temporary
> period are not given any privileged exceptions to any new provisions of
> the new charter.
>
> I really wouldn't call that "grandfathering" at all (that term implies
> retention of past provisions as exceptions to a new regime, which I would
> utterly reject). The most I would approve of is that if it only takes
> small modifications of a constituency's description to adhere to the new
> charter it might have a more streamlined re-application process.
>
> Also, can someone tell me if NCUC is expected to retain its existence
> under NCSG? My impression was that NCUC would be evaporating, and simply
> replaced by NCSG em masse. OTOH, if something like NPOC would exist, I
> might want NCUC to endure so I could be a member of that.
>
> Dan
>
>
> --
> Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and
> do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.
>
>
>
> On Thu, November 11, 2010 11:45 am, Rosemary Sinclair wrote:
>> so now we have to chat about "grandfathering provisions" and need a new
>> clause in the proposed Charter which is clear on our position that any
>> Constituency however approved that is a part of NCSG is bound by the
>> Charter rules of NCSG....
>>
>> Rosemary
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: NCSG-NCUC on behalf of Alex Gakuru
>> Sent: Fri 11/12/2010 3:45 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: SPAM-LOW: Constituencies, old and new
>>
>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask]
|
