Why not compromise. Attempt to restart a process where the SIC and NCUC charters are considered side by side. The NCUC has three council seats. 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. So why not accept the interim and offer to work with the board to help identify possible candidates from such groups, and to try and bring those groups into the NCUC or to encourage them to form a constituency (as consumer groups seem to be trying to do, can NCUC help them?) And then look to negotiate differences between the charters. Can we accept that councillors could be selected through a hybrid constituency based model, where a general membership selects a slate which is then voted on by constituencies in an Executive Committee? (just an idea...) And at the same time emphasize that policy must be developed in a bottom-up fashion at the stakeholder-wide level. Can we come up with specific rule based criteria for the creation of new constituencies (no one will apply to the vague process in the SIC charter, it is no better than what we've had since the GNSO was created.) I think we were set back from discussing workable compromises when the SIC draft was put forward and the NCUC draft effectively taken off from discussion. Ours and the community's responses were made to the SIC draft, but we did not discuss and modify in response to comments the NCUC draft. Where there was criticism of the NCUC draft was on the static position of some months ago. I have heard some people assert that the NCUC has never shown any willingness to compromise from its criticism of anything that it hadn't written, yet claiming that the NCUC documents were still open to negotiation -- so a public attempt to engage in negotiation would at least put this to the test. Think there are two options: some form of appeal to the Board's decisions, i.e. reconsideration, obmudsman (who has the power to open all kinds of email trails, discover what documents were presented, what was said), or independent review. Or more sensible, offer to negotiate, offer some compromise. Adam (not on behalf of GLOCOM NCUC member, or ALAC of which I a member. Purely personal observation.) >Here is ICANN's announcement calling for >Statements of Interest from those interested in >volunteering to be appointed by the board to >represent noncommercial users: > ><http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-05aug09-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-05aug09-en.htm > >"... Of the four new Stakeholder Group Charters >approved by the Board last week, this temporary >seat selection by the Board is unique to the >NCSG. It reflects a fundamental view that the >current non-commercial community participation >in the GNSO is not yet sufficiently diverse or >robust to select all six of the NCSG's allocated >Council seats (as was originally intended by the >Board's GNSO Improvements initiative)...." > >ICANN claims we are not "sufficiently diverse or >robust enough to select all six" GNSO Council >seats. Yet NCUC represents 137 noncommercial >organizations and individuals from 48 countries. > Our membership has increased by 205% since the >parity principle was established. There never >was any bar for us to meet - that rhetoric was >invented by the commercial constituencies and >selectively adopted by ICANN staff to justify >why 137 noncommercial organizations and >individuals are not entitled to elect their own >representation. > >Too bad noncommercial users will not be given >electoral parity with commercial users as the >BGC originally promised. Another empty promise, >another rigged process. ICANN is more >aggressive than ever in squeezing out >noncommercial users in policy development. So >sad. > >Robin > > >IP JUSTICE >Robin Gross, Executive Director >1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >w: ><http://www.ipjustice.org>http://www.ipjustice.org > e: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]