Thanks all for the comments. They were helpful.
I do understand how it works now, what I am saying is that for me it seems dysfunctional, and that NCUC members and NPOC members have different stakes to defend, and creating this third instance (the NCSG) where everything mixes up seems unnecessary messy, although I can see a role of umbrella for the NCSG.
There is a conceptual mistake in the design of the NCSG. NCUC and NPOC are different stakeholders, since they identify different kinds of stakes, the reality of non for profit is completely different from an individual user, even when they are both non-commercial. In addition, even though the GNSO demands to have a NCSG, the proper way to deal with this NPOC/NCUC diversity is no to mix them but to allow them to define themselves, something that ion the current process is diluted.
In other words, what we call constituencies in this case should be the main consensus builder, since they are the closest to the stakeholders. Having the NCSG build consensus for them does not really make it rough, it makes it confusing by disregarding the real stakeholder group voice, the constituencies voice. The NCSG should be the result of the different consensus reached in the constituencies. I can understand creating new constituencies for a better structure, but I cannot see useful to have individual members in the NCSG that don’t belong to either NCUC or NPOC, if another constituency is necessary to hold another specific type of voices then another one should be build.
Cheers,
Martín.
Este email, incluyendo adjuntos, podría contener información confidencial protegida por ley y es para uso exclusivo de su destinatario. Si Ud. no es el destinatario, se le advierte que cualquier uso, difusión, copia o retención de este email o su contenido está estrictamente prohibido. Si Ud. recibio este email por error, por favor avise inmediatamente al remitente por teléfono o email y borre el mismo de su computadora. / This e-mail, including any attachments, may contain information that is protected by law as privileged and confidential, and is transmitted for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying or retention of this e-mail or the information contained herein is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or reply e-mail, and permanently delete this e-mail from your computer system.
Hi Martin,I hope that I can clarify the situation here for you . as laywe, I think you will find some time to read the NCSG charter which explain the principles and give you better understanding : https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/CharterI just never fully understood why NCUC and NPOC do not handle their own application process.
NCUC and NPOC handle their applications process, NCSG only approve NCSG members who may or not want to join constituencies, it is up to NCUC and NPOC to approve them as their members.
Why do people need to be NCSG first?
It would seem more useful that the NCSG where just an umbrella for NPOC and NCUC to help coordinate the NCUC and NPOC leaders.
yes we need NCSG, in fact constituencies cannot exist without it, they can be created and disbanded while the SG remains. it is not just in umbrella, a concept which may lead to the misunderstanding. it has the committees populated with representation from constituencies and also elected officers like the NCSG chair and also the election of GNSO councillors to represent the whole stakeholder group.I think you observed several times how many policies are discussed and statement done at the SG level.the stakeholder group model also exist in other parts of GNSO such the contracted party (registries and registrars )where there is no constituency per se.
The present way of having NCSG members that are also NCUC and NPOC creates a double representation that can be confusing, misleading and dysfunctional. Am I clear with this idea?
there is confusion here, a NCSG member can be just a NCSG member without joining constituencies or joining both or just 1 ot them . joining a constituency may be important for a member to work on some topic if s/he wants but it is not mandatory.there is no double representation but more diversity of representation and affiliation. I don't think you disagree with this.
I think the NCSG should not act like a stakeholder itself but as a coalition of the stakeholder that make part of it, therefore, the NCSG would just be the place where NCUC and NPOC community leaders meet to take things up. If not, it seems that the decision made in the NCUC or in NPOC through the consensus are not valued.
if NCUC or NPOC want to make their statements or own positions, they are not prevented to do so. having NCSG ensure having a more common positions and avoid building silos that won't communicate with each other and weaken them . at NCSG we work to build a position that have consensus of larger group, don't you think that is really strong? constituencies can also send their own statement to defend other points than a common position if they want.It makes no sense that the same members that debate and reach consensus in NCUC and NPOC separately are the ones that debate about the same decision and reach a new and different consensus in the NCSG. The decision of NPOC and NCUC should be considered equal inside the NCSG and the NCSG decision should be a higher hierarchy consensus that brings together the already consensus made in NCUC and NPOC (a consensus of consensus in an upper level than the bottom stakeholder). I believe than the current process takes away consensus from the real bottoms, NPOC and NCUC, and brings a dysfunctional dynamic where NCUC and NPOC voices, especially NPOC’s, are diluted for no real reason thanks to a double representation of NCUC and NPCO members in the NCSG as NCSG members.
the constituencies have the same representation in the executive and policy committees, so they are able to provide their positions via their representatives who should liaise with their constituencies, in particular for the latter regarding the policies.at NCSG ,we allow all members to communicate and debate together and so avoid a silo effect that will prevent members of different groups from discussing with each other.we have real bottom-up process here: the individual and organizational members who can participate directly at NCSG level and expressing their ideas . don't you think that is really powerful and avoid voices trapped in structures level?Just and idea, don't bite my head off!
no worry, all comments are welcome, it is learning space for everybody. hope that clarified things for you.Rafik
2014-09-22 11:10 GMT-03:00 Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>:agree completely.
avri
On 22-Sep-14 04:40, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> Which brings me to one technical issue I've been harping about
> to various people privately for some time: I see little point
> in maintaining three distinct member databases, when two
> are (required to be) subsets of the third. It would be much
> easier to maintain just NCSG member database and have
> constituency membership there as an attribute
> (of course still leaving it up to each constituency to
> decide who they accept as their members, they just would
> not need to maintain members' contact info &c separately).
> This would make for an easy workflow for the three ECs,
> one place for members to check their membership details, &c.