However, NCSG is not independently incorporated.  The charter comes via
ICANN's corporate body, not some other governmental body (such as the State
of California, under which ICANN itself is currently incorporated).

The tradition/culture at ICANN has been one of setting aside its corporate
foundation and acting as if that imprimatur is a mere formality to rubber
stamp our "bottom up" processes (well, bottom up except for the imposition
of charter provisions from the top down ... it's not *perfectly* bottom up,
because if it were we would not have separate constituencies, only working
groups and interest groups).  Even the contracts with NTIA were designed to
have minimal active oversight in practice.  The idea was to operate as
independently as possible.  So it's also natural that the same attitude
might be taken with its Supporting Organizations.  There it is in the name
itself!  The "O" in GNSO.

Still, formal jurisdiction does ultimately make *some* difference (the idea
that it doesn't at all is a fiction, however attractive it may be).  If
ICANN were to cease to have a government charter, NCSG would just be an
email list with no formal policy remit (and we could decide to remake our
charter without constituencies, because, what, the charter-less ICANN would
force us to do *what* with *what* consequences?).  Our only *formal*
influence is within the ICANN policy-making processes.  Of course, our
members cross over to membership of other organizations with related
missions, and the interplay there is important to recognize.  But any
influence outside ICANN is informal, like through the reputation of our
collective activities, or via some other institutional vehicle.

That said, as long as ICANN remains "an organization" then NCSG remains "an
organization" within that orbit with our own distinct positions and
policies (similar to federal structure: individual states are "governments"
even if they exist under the umbrella authority of a federal government).
If ICANN may weigh-in on such things, I see no reason NCSG may not,
especially because our positions may differ from those of other ICANN
organizations and ICANN itself as an umbrella organization.

Especially in cases where the formal jurisdiction is less important than
the collective weight of a body of consensus.

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.



At 5:16 PM +0800 10/31/14, David Cake wrote:
>It has a charter, a distinct defined membership, its own officers and
>internal processes, etc. It is an organisation. Sure, its most important
>roles are within ICANN processes, but that doesn't mean it isn't an
>organisation.
>Regards
>
>	David
>
>On 22 Oct 2014, at 7:32 pm, Seun Ojedeji
><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:28 PM, avri
>>doria <<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>No reason I see for not being able to sign. We are a bottom up
>>organization that participates in icann and can do anything we please in
>>terms of advocacy.
>>
>>
>>Hmm...actually i did not know NCSG is registered as an independent
>>organisation.
>>
>>Thanks
>>
>>
>>Cheers! 
>>
>>
>>
>>avri
>>
>>Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
>>
>>
>>-------- Original message --------
>>From: Seun Ojedeji <<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]>
>>Date:10/22/2014 7:05 AM (GMT-05:00)
>>To: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>>Cc:
>>Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on
>>period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations
>>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I will add a +1 to this if indeed NCSG can sign which i doubt,
>>considering that this is a stakeholder group within ICANN. Perhaps it
>>will be good to check if NSCG has ever signed anything outside of ICANN's
>>jurisdiction 
>>
>>Cheers!
>>
>>
>>On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:12 AM, William
>>Drake <<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>Hi
>>
>>I mentioned this before-is there any chance NCSG can sign on collectively
>>in support of opening the ITU up a bit?  This is of relevance to the IG
>>environment.  I've signed as an individual but network/org endorsements
>>matter much more in UN-land.
>>
>>Bill
>>
>>
>>>Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>From: Anne Jellema <<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]>
>>
>>Date: October 20, 2014 at 10:38:08 PM GMT+2
>>
>>To: "<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]"
>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]>
>>
>>Subject: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU
>>Plenipot joint recommendations
>>
>>Reply-To: Anne Jellema
>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]>
>>
>>
>>Dear colleagues
>>
>>As you know, a fluid working group was formed after the IGF to try to
>>come up with joint recommendations for the ITU Plenipot. We produced the
>>open letter on transparency and participation in the Plenipot process
>>itself, which many of you signed (thank you!). Our second and harder task
>>was to develop positions on some of the most important substantive issues
>>before the conference. The output of this second phase of our work is a 7
>>page lobby document that is now available for endorsement for the next 24
>>hours at:
>>
>><http://bestbits.net/itu-plenipot-notes>http://bestbits.net/itu-plenipot-notes
>>
>>
>>The fluid working group struggled to obtain the conference proposals on
>>which to base our analysis and recommendations, both because of the ITU's
>>restrictions on document access and because many Member States submitted
>>their proposals quite late in the day. As a result, our drafting process
>>has taken us hard up against the start of the Plenipot itself.
>>
>>It is now very urgent to get this text in front of delegations, so we are
>>opening it for endorsements rather than comment. If however someone has a
>>red flag, "absolutely can't live with it" issue that prevents them from
>>signing on, they should email me personally in the next 24 hours to
>>propose an edit(s) to resolve this issue, and I will consult the other
>>members of the ITU fluid working group on whether to accept this edit.
>>
>>Due to the lack of time for comment and consensus, we are not presenting
>>these recommendations in the name of Best Bits or on behalf of civil
>>society in general but only on behalf of the specific organisations
>>endorsing.
>>
>>If you would like your organisation to be listed, please send your logo
>>to Carolina Rossini
>>(<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]) by
>>22:30 CET (16:30 EST) tomorrow, 21 Oct.
>>
>>Best wishes
>>Anne
>>
>>-- 
>>
>>Anne Jellema
>>CEO  
>>+27 061 36 9352 (ZA) 
>>
>><tel:%2B1%20202%C2%A0684%206885>+1 202 684 6885 (US)
>>@afjellema
>>
>>World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington
>>DC, 20005, USA | <http://www.webfoundation.org/>www.webfoundation.org |
>>Twitter: @webfoundation 
>>
>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>>To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>
>>   <http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits>http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>***********************************************
>>William J. Drake
>>International Fellow & Lecturer
>>  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>  University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
>>  ICANN, <http://www.ncuc.org/>www.ncuc.org
>><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask] (direct), <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask] (lists),
>>  <http://www.williamdrake.org/>www.williamdrake.org
>>***********************************************
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Seun Ojedeji,
>>Federal University Oye-Ekiti
>>web:      <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/>http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
>>Mobile: +2348035233535
>>alt
>>email:<http://goog_1872880453/> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>>
>>The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Seun Ojedeji,
>>Federal University Oye-Ekiti
>>web:      <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/>http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
>>Mobile: +2348035233535
>>alt
>>email:<http://goog_1872880453/> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>>
>>The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>>
>
>
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Disposition: attachment;
>	filename=signature.asc
>Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
>	name=signature.asc
>Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
>
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:signature 353.asc (    /    ) (008D1D91)