Comments on the CSG and NCSG Charters and NomCom Delegates
These following comments are being made solely on my own behalf and not on behalf of the ALAC. I fully support the comments made by Cheryl Langdon-Orr on 24 July 2009, and reiterate that these comments are consistent with formal statements made by the ALAC over the last year. I further note that the changes to the NCSG charter proposed by the SIC explicitly remove the major two problems that I saw in the NCUC proposal, specifically the potential difficulty in making the NCSG attractive to new players, and the potential for capture of the NCSG Council seats by suitably motivated individuals. I also want to express support for sections 1 and 2 of Robin Gross's comments on the CSG charter made on behalf of the NCUC on 24 July 2009. The proposed CSG charter, coupled with the Constituency charters within the SG, could effectively block the GNSO participation of many commercial players who do not fit into the Contracted Parties House. Moreover, there is the potential for excluding small (and possibly unincorporated) commercial entrepreneurs from participation in the CSG. I further support the comments of Avri Doria submitted 21 July 2009 regarding Nominating Committee Delegates. The GNSO currently nominates 7 voting members of the Nominating Committee (2 from the Business Constituency and 1 from each other Constituency). There has been little attention paid to how the new Stakeholder Groups and their Constituencies/Interest Groups will select Nominating Committee Delegates, or for that matter, even how many such delegates there will be. Alan Greenberg |