Alan Greenberg wrote:
NCUC proposed a charter for the new NCSG. The Board (in conjunction with or through its Structural Improvements Committee) rejected some parts of that charter saying that it did not meet the Board's criteria, particularly with regard to being able to attract new players into the NCSG (one of the prime motivators for the planned new GNSO structure). The Board instructed that staff propose alternative wording for the charter which they did, and that revised charter is now out for comment.
The NCUC (quite naturally) objected to the proposed changes, and has done a good job of encouraging their own members and like-minded people to voice those objections.
Sorry, Alan, but I have one question of clarification for the benefit of all readers. Reading what you wrote above, it appears that the Board wants all GNSO constituencies to be "able to attract new players", but that the NCUC is fighting against this. This _could_ be interpreted as NCUC's opposing an intent to be more inclusive, which seems counter-intuitive. Does the aim to "attract new players" do so in a way that brings more advocates to the new NCSG, or simply dilutes its already-limited influence? How are other constituencies impacted by this Board criteria? (I know you've been through this endlessly before, but as you can appreciate -- and has been illustrated in Dharma's recent messages -- it's a very difficult story to tell.) - Evan