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. >