Rosemary,

My response was inadvertently under this thread when meant for another.
Please ignore it here and excuse me.

Alex

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Rosemary Sinclair <
[log in to unmask]> 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.
> >
>