Your concerns on this point is based. I personally made a lot of reservations from some organizations of civil society in my country for the following reasons: -motivation was not clearly justified; -local activities, not sufficient to justify the ability of involvement and participation; -the total absence in the debates at the local level; There is so much evidence on which I based to be reluctant. For this reason we have thought of a technical community platform bringing together several people with competence in the field of ICT and can discuss the evolution of the digital environment in the country. We work with well-structured organizations such as BSD (www.bdscongo.org). SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : [log in to unmask] skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2011/10/17 Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> > These are good observations, Avri. The last point you make: > > > Which made me curious about their commitment to membership > > Is precisely why we must insist that the organizations themselves apply for > membership, and not do it through a proxy or aggregator. > It is not difficult for someone with resources to go out and gin up a list > of organizations that they say are interested in membership. If I had the > time, I could come up with a list of 50-or so new organizations that I think > "ought" to join NCSG and they might even express a vague interest in joining > when I talk to them on the phone or at a meeting. But unless that > organization cares enough to submit its own organization through the proper > channels, it is not a real application. I am not accusing anyone of fake > applications, I am just saying that they have to do the work of applying > themselves. > > From the beginning of ICANN people have expressed concerns about how civil > society representation in multistakeholder institutions raises the risk of > manipulation by interested parties in the guise of civil society entities. > That is an important and real concern, and our membership admission > procedures must take it into account. As an NCSG Executive Committee member, > I will oppose any new member admission that does not come from the > organization's own representative. > > --MM > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf > > Of Avri Doria > > Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 3:55 PM > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] for Debbie: Explaining votes made while > > representing NCSG while on GNSO Council > > > > On 14 Oct 2011, at 15:43, Alain Berranger wrote: > > > > > Since NCUC leadership is controlling NCSG (approval of NPOC members and > > its impact on the election process, travel allocation issues, etc...) > there is not > > much space for NPOC to debate. > > > > > > I beleive this is a false statement. > > > > The NCSG-EC is composed of both NCUC and NPOC. > > Yes they have yet to learnt to work together, but the NCUC is not > controlling > > the NCSG. > > > > Even the previous NCSG-EC had an NPOC member on it. > > > > And I have been trying to get the NPOC members to join the NCSG for over > a > > year, but most refused to do so until they got their constituency. > > And further, on the vote, of the NPOC members who had been accepted as > > members, only a few ever bothered to check in, hence like most of the > > NCUC inactive members, cannot vote. This has NOTHING to do with the > > NCSG-EC or allegations of prejudice by NCUC. > > > > Which made me curious about their commitment to membership. > > > > In my opinion the only reason NPOC is not involved in the debate is > because > > the NPOC has not bothered to involve itself in the debate. > > > > avri >