I don't understand the message? please elaborate. On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:09 PM, Rosemary Sinclair <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > To make this "open church" model work we have to very open to "other" views- > reflected clearly in our processes, practices, policies, admin arrangements > and structures etc tc > > Avri is the only person I know (I mean this quite literally!) who makes this > believable in both rhetoric and reality!! > > i find it very hard to walk the talk on inclusiveness when I have my own > position - human after all???? > > Rosemary > > > -----Original Message----- > From: NCSG-NCUC on behalf of Milton L Mueller > Sent: Wed 11/10/2010 4:15 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: NPOC Q&A Document > >> -----Original Message----- >> >> What I am arguing is that the position itself does not make one >> unqualified >> for NCSG membership. I again refer to the model of the NCSG as a broad >> tent for differing opinions from the non-commercial stakeholders. > > This is exactly correct. We have already had significant disagreements > within NCUC and NCSG about issues such as Whois and trademarks, going back > ten years. So there is nothing wrong with individuals or organizations such > as Amber or Deborah joining and making the case for those positions. > > What _is_ wrong is for constituencies to be based on policy differences. As > David Cake's earlier message said, > > "The NPOCs entire existence appears predicated on the idea > that if two groups of essentially similar organisations have policy > differences, the only possible solution is to leap immediately to > forming a new Constituency." > > Once that principle gets established, then we could have literally 30-50 > different "constituencies" because the noncommercial groups in different > parts of the world or with different ideologies all have different policy > positions and perspectives. And none of them would have to talk to each > other or work together, they would simply go for their own guaranteed seats > on the Council etc. > > And if you _don't_ end up with all these constituencies then at some point > you have to impose a cutoff that arbitrarily privileges those constituencies > that happened to be formed first, and penalizes those that want to be formed > later. > > This is why the NCUC leadership opposed the Constituency-silo model from the > beginning. It doesn't scale, and it prevents rational policy development. > > > > -- regards, Alex Gakuru http://www.mwenyeji.com Hosting, surprise yourself!