Hi Seun,

On Sep 23, 2014, at 10:52 AM, Seun Ojedeji <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hello Rafik,

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Rafik Dammak <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hi Seun,


if you check the NCSG committees such as the  executive and policy committees , they includes 2 representatives from each constituency who should liaise with their groups and bring their inputs. while the NCSG membership also give the policy committee input directly like when we have a public statement under consultation. 

I get the point...i also hope that the GNSO councillors are either NPOC or NCUC member as it looks like one can sign-up to NCSG and not necessarily be part of NPOC/NCUC which IMO defeats the purpose of having constituencies

The six NCSG representatives to the GNSO council also serve on the NCSG PC. So does the NCSG Chair, which along with the 4 reps from the existing 2 constituencies makes 11 in total.

A drawback to your proposal of having the GNSO councillors being strictly affiliated with constituencies is that it would hinder their (our) ability to represent members of those who do not belong to the constituency we belong to on the GNSO council.

I am a member of NCSG as well as NCUC. However, I was elected to council by NCSG members; which to me means that I represent the members of NCSG regardless of their constituency memberships or lack of. When I participate in discussions about gTLD policy, I don’t do so on the NCUC list. I send my comments to the NCSG. When I discuss issues on the council list or during council meetings, I try to represent all the NCSG membership, not those limited to a single constituency.

I hope that helps.

Thanks.

Amr