On 12 Aug 2009, at 10:02, William Drake wrote:

> I guess the quotes mean that our constituencies are not true  
> constituencies in the ICANN sense.  But this is odd, since we  
> ultimately conceded that, "The procedures for becoming a Board- 
> recognized Constituency within the NCSG are contained in the ICANN  
> Bylaws and other procedures approved by the Board."  Also odd is the  
> statement that they'd have no electoral or voting functions, when we  
> say,


BTW:  yes, i acknowledge that the recent version of the NCSG do accept  
the notion of Board approved constituencies.  as time goes on in the  
re-negotiation for a future SG charter, I think the SG, once formed,  
should consider whether it wants to go back to the the original  
version that defined constituencies (i think i was using the term soft  
constituencies a year ago) in similar fashion to that used by the  
Registries SG for their interest groups.

a.