Parminder wrote:
Thanks for your detailed response...
I felt it was my duty, not staff's task, since the decisions were taken by the SIC, and it is my intention to take full responsibility for them, correct or incorrect, fair or injust they might have been.
Agree that public discussion about people should be done with a lot of discretion. Here we are not discussing people as much as the nature of a constituency and its representation, which matter deserves public discussion.
Agree. I only felt the risk of passing the fine line between judging the process and judging the people. I was worried when I started seeing names, and passing judgement on them.
Just two points. One, I have not been able to understand why sufficient distinction is not being made between commercial users and non commercial users, in which context most 'consumer organizations' are formed and spoken of. As I understand general consumer constituency means non-commercial consumer, and that is also represented in the name of the implicated constituency in the ICANN structure. (in this respect, i am not able to understand the meaning of ' the president of the largest consumer organization worldwide', which group is being referred to here ?).
Generally speaking, consumer protection organization do not make strict distinction between commercial and non commercial users. Even the ATUG, described as a business-oriented organization, has non commercial and non profit members, although they are not in majority. The situation is different for INTUG, that as I said is an umbrella organization that has consumer protection organizations as members, and these organizations are quite different from eachother, so the situation becomes even more mixed and blurred. My point, to make a long story short, is simply that to have a consumer protection constituency composed by consumer protection organizations that only address the needs of non commercial entities is a nonsense, as we will have a very poor coverage of the real world. It would be like if the IP constituency would not accept as member an organization that is non commercial or not for profit who wants to protect their brand name.
Second point: in the first case at one point you seem to suggest that one's formal employer - and its status and declared persuasions - are irrelevant to the case, but you build the case for the second person precisely on the ground of the employer's status etc...
I never said it was "irrelevant" in the first case, quite the contrary. This candidate has two affiliations, as she is also President of the INTUG, and the application has been made referring to this second hat. All the examples and the references in the application are related to this organization, and therefore the affiliation did indeed matter. As in the second case. I hope I have answered your questions. Regards, Roberto