I don't understand the message? please elaborate.

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:09 PM, Rosemary Sinclair
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> To make this "open church" model work we have to very open to "other" views-
> reflected clearly in our processes, practices, policies, admin arrangements
> and structures etc tc
>
> Avri is the only person I know (I mean this quite literally!) who makes this
> believable in both rhetoric and reality!!
>
> i find it very hard to walk the talk on inclusiveness when I have my own
> position - human after all????
>
> Rosemary
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NCSG-NCUC on behalf of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Wed 11/10/2010 4:15 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: NPOC Q&A Document
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> What I am arguing is that the position itself does not make one
>> unqualified
>> for NCSG membership.    I again refer to the model of the NCSG as a broad
>> tent for differing opinions from the non-commercial stakeholders.
>
> This is exactly correct. We have already had significant disagreements
> within NCUC and NCSG about issues such as Whois and trademarks, going back
> ten years. So there is nothing wrong with individuals or organizations such
> as Amber or Deborah joining and making the case for those positions.
>
> What _is_ wrong is for constituencies to be based on policy differences. As
> David Cake's earlier message said,
>
> "The NPOCs entire existence appears predicated on the idea
> that if two groups of essentially similar organisations have policy
> differences, the only possible solution is to leap immediately to
> forming a new Constituency."
>
> Once that principle gets established, then we could have literally 30-50
> different "constituencies" because the noncommercial groups in different
> parts of the world or with different ideologies all have different policy
> positions and perspectives. And none of them would have to talk to each
> other or work together, they would simply go for their own guaranteed seats
> on the Council etc.
>
> And if you _don't_ end up with all these constituencies then at some point
> you have to impose a cutoff that arbitrarily privileges those constituencies
> that happened to be formed first, and penalizes those that want to be formed
> later.
>
> This is why the NCUC leadership opposed the Constituency-silo model from the
> beginning. It doesn't scale, and it prevents rational policy development.
>
>
>
>



-- 
regards,

Alex Gakuru
http://www.mwenyeji.com
Hosting, surprise yourself!