[council] Non-commercial consticuency

["Harold J. Feld" <hfeld@mediaaccess.org>]

Phillip, thanks you for raising this on the list.  I vote to approve, of 
course.

In moving forward, I would like everyone to keep in mind that although 
the policy was drafted over a year ago, NCDNHC is the first test case of 
this policy working its way to conlusion.  We are, in effect, the 
policy's "shakedown" cruise and we are developing the appropriate 
procedures as we go.  

As such, while I agree with both Roger and Ken that the NC should not 
change the rules willy-nilly, that is not how I perceive what we are 
doing here.  We are not changing the policy, implementing the policy for 
the first time and learning as we go.

For example, although the policy provides that the delinquent 
consticuency may, in response to the show cause letter, chose to show 
cause why they should be exempt, it does not provide a roadmap for how 
the NC will make a determination that the delinquent consticuency has 
shown sufficient cause.  

This sort of thing is to be expected.  No matter how carefully drafted a 
policy, the first few implementations will require a good deal more time 
and work than later applications that become more routine.

We now have the additional complication that this proceeding must take 
place during the busiest and possibly most critical time in ICANN's 
structural evolution.  Not surprisingly, the bulk of energy of the NC 
reps and the constituencies is focused on structural reform.  While the 
day-to-day business of the consticuency must be done, and is being done, 
it is understandably slower and harder to do under these circumstances. 
 Add to this that all NC reps are busy people doing ICANN on top of an 
already imposible schedule, scattered over numerous time zones, and it 
is understandable why things are moving slower, and with less certainty, 
than anyone would like.

Harold Feld