dear all, While following seriously this debate, the consumers constituency,if so, can be consider as a catalyst vector. In fact which is consumer and which is not? With my opinion, the consumers constituency reinforces and gives a very great opportunity to civil society entities to express their opinion. Baudouin 2009/10/14 Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> > I remain concerned about the way consumer organizations in NCUC have been > left out the discussion entirely regarding the creation of a so-called > "consumer constituency". > It is fine for Beau to gather groups that agree with his pro-law > enforcement perspective of how to protect consumers, but it isn't fair to > exclude those consumer groups who do not espouse such a pro-law enforcement > viewpoint of how to empower consumers. There are just far more > perspectives to incorporate than this single narrow mindset to claim the > entire label of "consumer constituency". We need to see more diversity of > perspective among the groups who want to claim this broad label. > > Robin > > > On Oct 13, 2009, at 4:02 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > I totally support the position Avri is stating here. > We certainly know that nonduplication will be used by the existing CSG > constituencies when convenient; we also know that Beau and others can > "claim" to be "talking to" lots of important organizations but when push > comes to shove they didn't even comment in favor of his petition, so > evidence of actual members is essential./ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC- <NCUC-> > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 8:35 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] preliminary notes from 30 Sept. board meeting > online > > On 13 Oct 2009, at 14:06, William Drake wrote: > > i would recommend adding consideration of: > > c: That they have consulted with the consumer protection > constituents already in the NCUC and can show why this is not > duplication > d. That they be able to show that they are already viable in terms > of having an active membership and an email list and have started > creating postions and having enough people to start really > contributing to the working groups > > > e. That the new charter be again put out for review before final > Board approval > > (these are the kind of things that i think should be standard for > all new constituencies) > > > I'm fine with these, but wouldn't adding more conditions (under > which what, we won't complain?) invite more push back from board, > staff, proponents? I was thinking timing and actually nonprofit > were a minimalist set of criteria it's harder to argue against. I > guess we'll see how it all plays soon enough. > > > > I guess I would have to recommend that all the reasonable conditions > for accepting a new constituency should be laid out at the start. > Adding conditions later on seems like the kind of tactic others have > engaged in too frequently in the GNSO environment. Better to have the > Board know up front what seems reasonable. If you go into this > meeting with a bare minimalist position, when you compromise in the > end (and one always has to compromise to get anything in the end) you > will get less then your bare minimum. > > I do not think that we should present unreasonable requests, but I > think the 3 I suggested are reasonable for all constituencies > anywhere, and I think of them as being a minimum. Lets put it this > way, if you wanted to form a working group in the IETF these kind of > things are basic, and there they are only talking about ephemeral > technical discussion groups, not permanent entities to form the policy > for the Internet in general. These are thing that should be simple > for any real constituency to show - again I use the cities > constituency as an example. They have all of this and more. > > While the negotiating group has to be polite, reasonable and concise, > it does not need to sell itself short. I think it is reasonable to be > determined that a new constituency be real and a substantive entity > before it becomes a constituency. > > (And remember, this is from someone who in general has always > supported the creation of constituencies within an SG structure with > flat voting of some sort.) > > a. > > > > > > 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 e: [log in to unmask] > > > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE téléphone fixe: +243 1510 34 91 Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243999334571 +243811980914 email:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr blog:http://educticafrique.ning.com/