RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Proposal for discussion July 17

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I personally think that is reasonable but there might be concerns that
any such constituency would have a tendency to continually push for
expansion of ICANN's mission.  That happens already so maybe it is not a
big deal and it is probably manageable.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 1:35 PM
> To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Proposal for discussion July 17
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> But would people agree that this might be an acceptable 
> constituency within an expanded NCSG (assuming there was such 
> a constituency that wished to organize and get involved and 
> that the NCSG was created so as to allow new constituencies 
> to form etc... and recognizing that talking about how any SG 
> is organized is defined as beyond our remit.)
> 
> a.
> 
> On 16 Jul 2008, at 13:30, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > Agreed Alan, as long as it involves issues within ICANN's 
> mission.   
> > But it is not a good idea in my opinion to view ICANN (and hence the
> > GNSO) as a consumer protection organization because it is 
> not part of 
> > their mission, they do not have the resources to do that 
> and there are 
> > organizations already in place to handle that.
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> 
>