Re: [council] commercial and contractual constituencies meddling in structure of noncommercial group is unacceptable

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Dear Robin,

On Sun, 2009-01-18 at 12:56 -0800, Robin Gross wrote:
> The answer, unfortunately, is the Board resolution of Dec. 12 (and
> below) and Avri’s proposed response to it.  This calls for the NCSG to
> be defined by the entire GNSO and ALAC – indeed, it does not even
> mention existing members of NCUC as participants in the process.   
> 

I do _not_ believe this is the case.

I was responding to a board motion on how registrant constituencies, in
this case various possible non commercial registrant constituencies,
were to be accommodated in the the GNSO.  Whether it is appropriate for
the entire community to be involved in this can be discussed - at the
moment the establishment of a new constituency is a community wide
matter that is approved by the board.  To state that including the whole
community however, excludes the NCUC is hard to understand for NCUC is
part of the community.  What was excluded in my original proposal,
though, was mention of representatives from those new potential
constituencies.  Whatever path is taken to a solution, I do hope these
people will be included as was called for by the board motion, and I
apologize for overlooking them in the formula I put forward on this
list..

This issue has been confounded with the issue of  Stakeholder Group
Petition/Charter Template where the internal structure of the NCSG  to
be described.  I think these are different, though related, issues.  I
do not think anyone is questioning anything about the NCSG structure,
its steering groups, committees, etc.  What makes this seem an issue is
that your proposal called for constituencies to be a purely internal
matter for the SG, while the current bylaws, and the view of the Board
recommendations and the template this remains a Board prerogative.
Again, without taking a position on whether constituencies are primary
with SG secondary as defined currently and by the Board, or SGs are
primary and constituencies secondary as defined in the NCSG proposal, I
do believe that it is a tangential topic to the one called for in the
Board resolution.

Thank you,

a.