Subject: Re: [council] commercial and contractual constituencies meddling in structure of noncommercial group is unacceptable From: Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> Reply-To: [log in to unmask] To: Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> Cc: Council GNSO <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask] In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> References: <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-Id: <1232314064.6314.23.camel@bower> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.2 Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:27:49 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear Robin, On Sun, 2009-01-18 at 12:56 -0800, Robin Gross wrote: > The answer, unfortunately, is the Board resolution of Dec. 12 (and > below) and Avri’s proposed response to it. This calls for the NCSG to > be defined by the entire GNSO and ALAC – indeed, it does not even > mention existing members of NCUC as participants in the process. > I do _not_ believe this is the case. I was responding to a board motion on how registrant constituencies, in this case various possible non commercial registrant constituencies, were to be accommodated in the the GNSO. Whether it is appropriate for the entire community to be involved in this can be discussed - at the moment the establishment of a new constituency is a community wide matter that is approved by the board. To state that including the whole community however, excludes the NCUC is hard to understand for NCUC is part of the community. What was excluded in my original proposal, though, was mention of representatives from those new potential constituencies. Whatever path is taken to a solution, I do hope these people will be included as was called for by the board motion, and I apologize for overlooking them in the formula I put forward on this list.. This issue has been confounded with the issue of Stakeholder Group Petition/Charter Template where the internal structure of the NCSG to be described. I think these are different, though related, issues. I do not think anyone is questioning anything about the NCSG structure, its steering groups, committees, etc. What makes this seem an issue is that your proposal called for constituencies to be a purely internal matter for the SG, while the current bylaws, and the view of the Board recommendations and the template this remains a Board prerogative. Again, without taking a position on whether constituencies are primary with SG secondary as defined currently and by the Board, or SGs are primary and constituencies secondary as defined in the NCSG proposal, I do believe that it is a tangential topic to the one called for in the Board resolution. Thank you, a.