Comment on the NCSG proposals

[George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky@xxxxxxxxx>]

I'd like to comment on the petitions submitted by the NCUC and by 
Cheryl Preston with regard to the structuring of the new NCSG.
First, I've felt for some time that the positioning for individuals 
within ICANN is confusing.  They have been represented in theory in 
the past through membership in an organization belonging to the ALAC, 
and now they can be represented within the new NCSG structure.   I 
don't see any clean delineation between those two forms of 
representation.  However, I am pleased that there now will be an 
opportunity for individuals to participate individually and formally, 
so I approve of the broad outlines of the GNSO restructuring, even if 
their scope of direct formal participation is limited to the GNSO.
I've commented earlier regarding the proposal put forward by Cheryl 
Preston.  It deserves to be rejected for the many reasons that were 
mentioned in the comments, both mine and those of other people 
opposed to it.
Yet I cannot support the current NCUC proposal, although it comes 
closer to what I would like to see as the future structure for that 
part of the GNSO.  I'll just raise one of several objections: 
potential capture.  The way the voting rules are now defined allows a 
significantly large group of individuals to capture the organization 
without difficulty.
I have discussed this with the proponents of the plan, and they feel 
that with more organizations joining the new NCSD, capture is highly 
unlikely.  However, I note that the present NCUC is both small and 
poorly represented at ICANN meetings --- admittedly for obvious 
reasons of cost.  I see no guarantee that future meetings and 
business based on the NCUC evolutionary model will be significantly 
different.  What percentage of members of the current NCUC would 
respond to a call for votes?  I don't know the answer, but I wouldn't 
be surprised if the number was 25% or less, and maybe much less.  So 
if the NCSG has more members, will that translate into many more 
organizational votes?  I doubt it.    Obviously there is a large 
difference of opinion between me and the NCUC plan's proponents.
One current evidence of the lack of interest in this subject is the 
small number of comments that have been filed to date.   this in my 
mind is a rough predictor of future involvement and ov voting 
response.
My advice is to accept neither plan, but if it is at all possible, 
somehow give encouragement to the current NCUC group to rethink those 
aspects of the plan that have been rationally criticized by others, 
and come up with a better version that attempts to remedy the 
problems that have been pointed out by its critics.
We are nowhere near even rough consensus on this issue.  I believe 
that closing the door now will leave fractures in the non-commerical 
community that will be difficult to heal.   I see little enefit to 
proceeding without a better consensus regarding the direction in 
which we are proceeding.  As that famous American philosopher Yogi 
Berra is reputed to have said, "If you don't know where you're going, 
any direction will get you there."
George Sadowsky