<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
And I do not think that the views of either NPOC or of NCUC on this
particular subject are institutionally entrenched. <br>
<br>
I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of NPOC members would have
views aligned with that of the majority of NCUC members on that
particular matter (you can of course formulate this the other way
around). <br>
<br>
Nicolas<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 22/09/2014 2:57 PM, Milton L Mueller
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:a369c2dd4c9a47c1b6a5553b830b2cbf@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Candara;
panose-1:2 14 5 2 3 3 3 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.hoenzb
{mso-style-name:hoenzb;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:"Consolas","serif";}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Yes,
I stand corrected. Lori is right, around IPR/name protection
issues there have been some differences between NPOC
founders and NCUC. However, we don’t need constituency
structures to reflect those differences, we could have ad
hoc special interest groups or caucuses to promote a
particular view.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Milton
L Mueller<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Laura
J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Syracuse
University School of Information Studies<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/"><span
style="color:blue">http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/</span></a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
Lori Schulman [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org">mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, September 22, 2014 1:55 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Milton L Mueller;
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:npoc-voice@icann.org">npoc-voice@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: New member admission process and
member databases<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Dear
All,
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I
am speaking as an individual representative of ASCD on this
string and not as member of the NPOC-EC or NCSG-EC. The
NPOC EC is drafting its own response.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I
think that Martin’s points are valid as there is confusion
as to the difference and meaning of the constituencies.
The organizational structure adds to that confusion.
Milton’s vast institutional knowledge certainly adds some
clarity about how the situation has evolved but I want to
point out a few things. First of all, Section 5.1.1 and
5.1.2 of NPOC charter requires that members be organizations
not individuals. So, NPOC cannot start admitting
individuals at any time. NPOC was organized by a group of
concerned nonprofits because there are points were NCUC and
nonprofit organizational interests diverged…primarily in the
area of the protection of organizational names. While we
are aligned very closely with issues regarding access and
free speech, there are areas of concern regarding the
security of the internet as it related to the misuse of
organizational names for fundraising and fraud. Some of the
rights protection mechanisms that were being considered for
commercial entities were of strong interest to nonprofits
particularly those with a global brand presence. There were
other issues as well and a lot of negotiating. I was not
part of the those negotiations at the time. However, there
are others who were from the nonprofit org side who may want
to chime in about what those discussions entailed and why
the outcome is what it is.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Whether
or not constituencies are still a good idea is certainly a
topic for discussion. My own feeling is that while
nonprofit orgs may have some similar concerns to commercial
entities in the name space there are many areas where they
diverge when it comes to talking about access and
accountability. There is a need for a home for nonprofit
organizations as organizations. For years, NCUC was that
home. However, there was enough interest generated within
the orgs themselves that NPOC was born.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Lori<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="width:6.25in"
cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="600">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;mso-add-space:auto"><b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#76923C">Lori
S. Schulman</span></b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black">
· General Counsel<br>
1703 North Beauregard Street<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;mso-add-space:auto"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black">Alexandria,
VA 22311-1714<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;mso-add-space:auto"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black">P
703-575-5678 ·
</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Lori.Schulman@ascd.org">Lori.Schulman@ascd.org</a><br>
<img id="Picture_x0020_1"
src="cid:part3.02010905.07040904@gmail.com"
alt="cid:image001.png@01CC81E2.512C46F0"
border="0" height="29" width="259"></span><span
style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#76923C"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
NCSG-Discuss [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Milton L Mueller<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, September 22, 2014 1:14 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: New member admission process and
member databases<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Martin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Some
useful history for you. Prior to the GNSO reorganization,
constituencies _<i>were</i>_ the basic organizational units
of the GNSO. However, the noncommercial users constituency
(NCUC) was outnumbered by commercial user constituencies 3
to 1, and thus had no influence whatsoever.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">In
order to balance representation, some board-inspired reforms
came up with the idea of broader stakeholder groups, which
would be balanced between contracted parties (registrars and
registries) and non-contracted or “user” parties (commercial
and noncommercial stakeholder groups).
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Under
the new system Stakeholder Groups (SGs) became key units of
the ICANN regime and as such commanded certain staff and
support resources. We told ICANN staff at the time that it
made no sense to continue to have constituencies AND SGs.
Indeed, none of the contracted parties have “constituencies”
any more. NCUC fought like hell to have an integrated SG so
that we could avoid the organizational complexity and end
user confusion that would come from a two-tiered process. We
only partially succeeded, due to some really silly political
reasons that we don’t have time to go into here.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">One
of the problems with constituencies is that if you succeed
in creating one, you command support resources. So there is
kind of an artificial incentive to break off from larger
groups and form your own “constituency” so that you can be
its officer and get travel support and whatever. In the
commercial SG, which already had 3 existing constituencies,
they refused to dissolve into the larger SG. As a result,
Commercial SG constituencies have turned into protected
fiefdoms which have actually outlawed the creation of any
new constituency groupings that are not approved by the
existing ones!
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">There
are, in fact, no significant differences in the issue and
policy perspectives of NPOC and NCUC. NCUC admits individual
users, but most of its members are still organizations – and
NPOC could decide to admit individual users tomorrow.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I
think your analysis of the problem has it backwards. The
constituencies are the problem, not the SG structure. We
should abolish constituencies, as the contracting parties
already have. We should have an integrated SG, and allow ad
hoc interest groups to form within it around specific policy
issues
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The
best way to resolve these problems is to dissolve
constituencies altogether and make the noncommercial/civil
society presence in GNSO an integrated Noncommercial
Stakeholders Group. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
name="_MailEndCompose"></a><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">
NCSG-Discuss [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Martin Pablo Silva Valent<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, September 22, 2014 11:57 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NCSG-Discuss] New member
admission process and member databases<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;text-align:justify"><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Thanks
all for the comments. They were helpful.</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;text-align:justify"><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""> </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;text-align:justify"><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">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.</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;text-align:justify"><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""> </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;text-align:justify"><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">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.</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;text-align:justify"><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""> </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;text-align:justify"><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">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.</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""> </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Cheers,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Martín.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br clear="all">
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Martín P. Silva Valent<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Abogado / Lawyer<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">+54 911 64993943<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mpsilvavalent@gmail.com"
target="_blank">mpsilvavalent@gmail.com</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt">--------------------------------------------</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="text-align:justify"><span
style="font-size:7.5pt">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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">2014-09-22 12:23 GMT-03:00 Rafik
Dammak <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com" target="_blank">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a>>:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC
1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Martin,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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 : <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Charter"
target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Charter</a> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid
#CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:justify"><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">I just
never fully understood why NCUC and NPOC
do not handle their own application
process.</span> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid
#CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:justify"><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Why do
people need to be NCSG first?
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:justify"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid
#CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:justify"><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">It would
seem more useful that the NCSG where just
an umbrella for NPOC and NCUC to help
coordinate the NCUC and NPOC leaders.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think you observed
several times how many policies are discussed
and statement done at the SG level.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid
#CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:justify"><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">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?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">there is no double
representation but more diversity of
representation and affiliation. I don't think
you disagree with this.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid
#CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:justify"><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">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.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid
#CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:justify"><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid
#CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:justify"><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Just and
idea, don't bite my head off!</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">no worry, all comments are
welcome, it is learning space for everybody.
hope that clarified things for you.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#888888"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#888888">Rafik <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid
#CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">2014-09-22 11:10
GMT-03:00 Avri Doria <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:avri@acm.org"
target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>>:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="border:none;border-left:solid
#CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">agree completely.<br>
<span style="color:#888888"><br>
avri</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
On 22-Sep-14 04:40, Tapani
Tarvainen wrote:<br>
> Which brings me to one
technical issue I've been
harping about<br>
> to various people privately
for some time: I see little
point<br>
> in maintaining three
distinct member databases, when
two<br>
> are (required to be)
subsets of the third. It would
be much<br>
> easier to maintain just
NCSG member database and have<br>
> constituency membership
there as an attribute<br>
> (of course still leaving it
up to each constituency to<br>
> decide who they accept as
their members, they just would<br>
> not need to maintain
members' contact info &c
separately).<br>
> This would make for an easy
workflow for the three ECs,<br>
> one place for members to
check their membership details,
&c.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#77933C">Learn
the secrets to great leadership practices at the ASCD
Conference on Educational Leadership, October 31–November
2, 2014 in Orlando, Florida. Featured presenters include
Todd Whitaker, Baruti Kafele, Robyn Jackson, and Carol Ann
Tomlinson. Register NOW at
</span></b><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#E46C0A"><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.ascd.org/cel"><span
style="color:#E46C0A">www.ascd.org/cel.</span></a></span></b><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Candara","sans-serif";color:#77933C"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy,<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free.<o:p></o:p></pre>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>