<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:-webkit-standard;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="en-CH" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif;color:black">></span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif;color:black">It turns out "Not-For-Profit Operational Concerns" was
never ratified at ICANN.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><b><span style="font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif;color:black">It has always been Not-for-Profit Organizations Constituency</span></b><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif;color:black">.
At least if the latest official version of NPOC charter is to be believed</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Just for the record. Seems like NPOC needs to revise its charter to be in line with the actual name of the constituency.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2011-06-24-en#1.5">https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2011-06-24-en#1.5</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p style="background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">“</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:#333333">Whereas, the Board has specifically directed that efforts be made to provide leadership
and guidance within the GNSO's Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group to encourage the creation of broad, diverse and representative new GNSO Constituencies advancing global non-commercial interests.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="background:white;box-sizing: border-box;-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);line-height:1.4rem;margin:1.25rem;font-variant-ligatures: normal;font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: 2;widows: 2;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;text-decoration-style: initial;text-decoration-color: initial;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:#333333">Whereas, the Board has received a formal petition for the creation of a Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC) within the GNSO.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="background:white"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:#333333">..<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:#333333;background:white">Resolved (2011.06.24.05), the Board approves the proposed charter of the new Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency and formally recognizes the
organization as an official Constituency within the </span>GNSO<span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:#333333;background:white">'s Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (</span>NCSG<span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:#333333;background:white">)
eligible for formal </span>GNSO<span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:#333333;background:white"> administrative support and subject to the </span>NCSG<span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:#333333;background:white"> Charter
approved by the Board.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:#333333;background:white">”</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">---</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">James Gannon</span></b><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> on behalf of Raoul Plommer <plommer@GMAIL.COM><br>
<b>Reply to: </b>Raoul Plommer <plommer@GMAIL.COM><br>
<b>Date: </b>Tuesday, 28 July 2020 at 19:02<br>
<b>To: </b>"NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" <NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: A Proposal to Merge NCSG, NCUC and NPOC for More Efficiency in ICANN’s DNS Work<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">the argument that we need constituencies in order to expand travel support is the kind of trap we need to get out of. I think that the allocation to NCSG for travel support would be roughly the same</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
We do not need to expand our current travel support. Reducing it will likely result in less policy done. All the other Stakeholder groups' members get paid for their work at ICANN. What evidence do you have to support the claim that we would somehow have even
roughly the same amount of travel slots from ICANN after our fusion, when all the SGs are getting the same amount of slots based on a number of internal entities(?) ?<br>
<br>
It would be a different matter, if we were actually now expanding to create additional constituencies just to get more travel slots, which would be less savoury in my eyes too, but taking away 2/3 of the biggest perk (right after saving the world of course!)
of our work seems just silly to me.<br>
<br>
How would the amalgamation affect our influence at NCPH, and moreover at the GNSO? For one, at the GNSO, NPOC was recently mentioned as one true case of evolution of the GNSO and thus likely to result in NCSG getting another seat at NomCom. I think to even
reconsider Sam's proposal, we need a serious analysis on the results of such magnitude. I am sure there are other such examples that we need to find out about.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> it seems like many of the most active NPOC people are individuals now (Sam?). NPOC was initially founded by big nonprofits with trademarks whose talk of “operational concerns” was kind of a euphemism for trademark
protection.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">People are individuals, active or not. NPOC only allows organisations as its members and individuals represent those organisations at ICANN. I represent Open Knowledge Finland. It turns out "Not-For-Profit Operational Concerns" was never
ratified at ICANN. <b>It has always been Not-for-Profit Organizations Constituency</b>. At least if the latest official version of NPOC charter is to be believed, that is hosted at ICANN's website. "Operational Concerns" seems just spin and graphics on a website
and business cards some years ago. Nothing official. We have also updated our charter in our review process to reduce the size of our EC from six to four, enabling us to send the most active member from the region to every ICANN meeting with CROP.<br>
<br>
We should really be concentrating on our actual work. Our internal structure seems the least of our problems at the moment and to be perfectly honest, I don't think the whole discussion is very positive as a whole. I would certainly like to wait at least until
our new chairs are on board to revisit this discussion again.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
-Raoul<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 10:41, Michael J. Oghia <<a href="mailto:mike.oghia@gmail.com">mike.oghia@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">In addition to Milton's comments on the third point, I want to highlight another point. There is so much natural overlap between the issues that each constituency addresses that trying to divide or delineate more explicitly may end up backfiring
or creating confusion and more unnecessary work. A united, but still specialised, approach seems more prudent to me.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br clear="all">
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Best,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">-Michael</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 12:25 AM Mueller, Milton L <<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu" target="_blank">milton@gatech.edu</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D">Hey, Raoul:</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">Having three ECs and ICANN supporting most of those members to live meetings is a major difference in my view. Almost all EC members should be concerned with
policy anyway, so eradicating 2/3 of our travel slots would likely result in even less policy activity.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D">MM: They don’t actually support all of them. But even if they did, the argument that we need constituencies in order to expand travel support
is the kind of trap we need to get out of. I think that the allocation to NCSG for travel support would be roughly the same – the difference would be that a unified SG would better be able to select people to travel based on their contribution to the policy
or admin work, not simply because they held one of an artificially inflated number of positions.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">Sure, the administrative work is probably doubled with the triumvirate as opposed to a singular structure. However, Maryam gets paid by ICANN to maintain most
of the administrative work (just like is done with other SGs) so it's not really eating _that_ much into the efficiency of volunteers.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D">MM: Seriously, Maryam does not do most of the administrative work. Ask Bruna! The constituency chair has to communicate, develop meeting
agendas, hold votes, etc. And we have to find people to occupy those positions. </span>
<span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">What WOULD help with the confusion, is to embrace the logical division that is set in the names of our constituencies. Delegate NGO issues to NPOC and individual
user issues to NCUC. Very easy to explain to all newcomers.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D">MM: I don’t think that division actually describes the difference between the two. And I don’t think you are going to get much support for
arbitrarily re-dividing the NCSG along those lines. </span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D">NCUC has always been composed of noncommercial orgs, indeed we did not even have individual members until relatively recently. My own member
org, IGP, is happy where we are; it seems like many of the most active NPOC people are individuals now (Sam?). NPOC was initially founded by big nonprofits with trademarks whose talk of “operational concerns” was kind of a euphemism for trademark protection.
NPOC left that behind some years ago however. Most of the policy issues NCSG is active around, such as privacy and free expression, are as salient to individuals as to organizations. So, trying to impose a new division on the two would just shuffle people
around and create more confusion.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>