Hi Adam,

I'm fine with restating openness to dialogue etc as you suggest.  Not  
that we haven't before.

Would like to pick up on one specific bit:

On Aug 6, 2009, at 9:37 AM, Adam Peake wrote:

> The NCUC does not have membership (or significant membership) from  
> international consumer organizations (noted in many recent comments  
> from the board and others as a missing constituent in all of ICANN),  
> nor for the largest academic communities, libraries, R&D, etc.

This may well be "noted" by the board and others but it is patently  
untrue http://ncuc.syr.edu/members.htm.   Just more disinformation.   
(BTW I also noted some on the transcript of the ALAC call, e.g. Nick  
saying that the NCUC proposal does not allow board approval of  
constituencies...facts don't matter if one can't be bothered to learn  
them).

Which is not to say that it wouldn't be great to have more groups with  
"consumer" in their title etc.

Perhaps this needs to be a larger, more focused discussion sometime,  
but while I think of it it's worth mentioning that there is also a  
claim in said circles that our members are not all sufficiently active  
and hence our diversity is just on paper, which in turn is supposed to  
allow for "capture" by a small cabal.  This of course is held against  
us as well, and will be relevant in the NCSG.  As you know, the  
staff's "Suggested Additional Stakeholder Group Charter Elements to  
Ensure Transparency, Openness, Fairness and Representativeness  
Principles" hold, inter alia, that "It is important that the Board and  
the community have the ability to determine what parties comprise a  
particular GNSO structure and who participates in an active way.... 
[hence] Each GNSO structure should collect, maintain, and publish  
active and inactive member names identified by membership category (if  
applicable)"

I raised concerns about the reasoning and operational implications of  
this on the last GNSO call, but they were pretty much brushed aside.   
So I guess in some unknown manner members will have to show sufficient  
signs of life on a frequent enough basis for staff to deem them active  
and consider their views to "count" when constituencies state  
positions.  Oh, and meeting attendance lists must be published and  
will be considered too.  At least, all this undoubtedly will apply to  
nomcomm constituencies, business ones may get the usual pass from the  
standards to which we're held.

And now I have to reply to the council list about this claim in the  
SOI that we are "not yet sufficiently diverse or robust to select all  
six"...sigh.  Pushing back on relentless disinfo does get tiring...

Bill