On some issues, you have your facts wrong. On other issues, the situation is the opposite of what you describe it.

1. There are 3 "new constituency" applications. I put "new" in quotes because 2 of the 3 of the three "new" constituencies are not new voices, they are just existing people forming constituencies and hoping to get guaranteed Council seats. (Cybersafety and Consumers.) Cheryl Preston and her crowd have been members of NCUC for years. Beau Brendler has been involved in ALAC for more than a year, too. Note that not a single consumer organization filed comments in favor of that application. So you basically have a one-person show, and as noted the person is already involved.) The third application, for IDN gTLD, is indeed a new set of voices -- but as prospective suppliers of registry/registrar services they applied to be part of the Commercial Users. The CSG will be organized along the old model - (but note that according to their charter, new constituencies must be approved by existing constituencies, and that simply won't happen because it would dilute their power. That is the argument I made in the original post, please try to answer it. If there is a City TLD group (I haven't seen a formal petition from them yet) they would be in the Registry constituency. And they too are people who have been around for years. And as contracting parties the registries are also unlikely to share their "precious" council votes with people who don't yet have contracts with ICANN. So you are proving my point for me: tying constituencies to Council votes actually discourages new groupings.

2. Telling new voices that they have to organize a constituency before they can be heard imposes an huge entry barrier on them. Not only do they have to fill out forms and learn the administrative ropes but -- and this is the real killer -- they have to get formal approval of the Board. Do you have any idea, Kieren, how formidable a political obstacle that is? With the current constituencies the process has already taken nearly a year and is nowhere near being completed. They have to set up their own organizations, mailing lists, etc. that relates back to poinbt #1 above. The only people who know enough about ICANN to effectively navigate the formation and approval of a constituency are people who are already involved. And as noted above, existing constitutencies will fight tooth and nail against new ones because it will dilute their voting power. In the NCSG model we propose, you just join the NCSG, have full participation rights, learn the ropes, and form BoFs or SIGs or constituencies within the NCSG whenever and however you want. 3. Does our proposed charter undercut new constituency proposals? Quite the opposite. If you tie new constituencies to council seats they become very difficult and contentious to form. Take Cybersafety as an example. If ICANN has to accept this constituency under the old terms, i.e. write it into the bylaws and guarantee it seats on the Council, it is almost certain that the constituency will not be approved. It opens a pandoras box and invites every other ideological group in the world to get a seat on the Council by forming a constituency. But under the NCUC plan, letting them form a constituency is no problem. They can have a group, a seat on the NCSG policy Council, etc.

4. Don't take this as an insult, I am just trying to be honest, but based on your comments I think you still don't quite understand what this issue is about. It is not about whether people can form groups of like-minded people to participate in GNSO. It is, instead, whether the model of the SGs links those groups to guaranteed seats on the Council, or whether Council members have to win a significant amount of support from the entire SG before they are seated as representatives on the Council. Please try to address that issue in future comments and discussions.