Although I do not support Danny's choice of rhetoric, I agree with the sentiment. The way to funnel the views (and votes) of multiple constituencies into six council voices and votes is indeed not easy. But I feel that the solution chosen in this charter, although easy to implement, is very far from a good one. If we want to attract diverse views and groups into this new Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, we must provide a mechanism for them to participate in deliberations and votes of the GNSO Council. Alan At 21/11/2008 12:04 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
Adam,
Re: Any comments on the new draft of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group petition document?
The charter for the NCSG is an abomination that denies individual constituencies the right to elect their own counselors and to vote their own conscience. Under Milton's proposal, the NCSG necessarily votes as a block.
This does not serve the interest of many that would otherwise consider joining this "house". Let me remind you that in the wake of the Registerfly situation, the NCUC did absolutely nothing to protect registrant rights -- they submitted no comments whatsoever during the 18-month long RAA discussions.
Why should the opinions of those that care about registrant concerns be subdued by a majority whose sole interest currently lies in privacy and freedom of expression to the exclusion of all else?
When the notion of a "House" was conceived, the last thing that anyone expected was a home exclusively for Milton's Merry Men.