Rosemary, My response was inadvertently under this thread when meant for another. Please ignore it here and excuse me. Alex On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Rosemary Sinclair < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > so now we have to chat about "grandfathering provisions" and need a new > clause in the proposed Charter which is clear on our position that any > Constituency however approved that is a part of NCSG is bound by the Charter > rules of NCSG.... > > Rosemary > > > -----Original Message----- > From: NCSG-NCUC on behalf of Alex Gakuru > Sent: Fri 11/12/2010 3:45 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: SPAM-LOW: Constituencies, old and new > > Spot on Milton! See: > http://forum.icann.org/lists/soac-newgtldapsup-wg/msg00627.html > It was just after the Board had decided to do away with the work we'd done > on JAS-WG. However, they later on changed their mind and "encouraged us to > carry on with the work." > > > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > Off list > > > > > > > > *From:* NCSG-NCUC [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf > > Of *Rosemary Sinclair > > > > > > > > Hmmm - the way I read our proposed Charter is that a Constituency however > > formed (whether from within or by direct application to the Board) > > > > When it is within NCSG (whether formed from within or attached by the > > Board) > > > > Is then bound by our Charter rules on voting, Councillors etc > > > > That would be incorrect. > > > > If NPOC is formed under our proposed NCSG charter, then it is bound by > our > > rules on voting, Councillors, etc. > > > > But our charter is not in effect yet, and clearly Amber and Debbie are > not > > applying under those rules. > > > > > > > > So if the constituency is approved before the NCSG charter is approved, > we > > really have no idea how NCSG works. > > > > And it is possible, though not likely, that we revert to the old > > constituency rules, which creates the walled garden/silos. > > > > No way around it: Debbie and Amber's move was untimely and not > > constructive. Even if you like their constituency proposal, the way > they've > > done it creates a mess. > > >