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.
>