Thanks Alan This was a very clear, concise and impartial summary. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Thursday, 23 July 2009 05:50 PM To: Dharma Dailey; Gareth Shearman Cc: Thompson, Darlene; dhalleck@ucsd.edu; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ncuc charter I am not without my biases in this, but I will try to explain what is going on in as unbiased a way as possible. 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. Alan At 23/07/2009 04:47 PM, Dharma Dailey wrote:
Check out the comments. http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/index.html#00015
All the comments that I looked at seem to being working from a framework of belief that staff is usurping civil society. People may never figure out (or care) what ICANN does or how it works, but a story of a snub has a way of snowballing. Once it's out there, it's hard to pull back. At a minimum, I think we (NARALO) should reach out to staff and petitioners to get a handle on what's going on.
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica nn.org Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------