<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">
No.
<div class="">NCUC also has organisation. Not just for individualals.<br class="">
<div><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On 11 Sep 2018, at 02:52, Olévié Kouami <<a href="mailto:olivierkouami@GMAIL.COM" class="">olivierkouami@GMAIL.COM</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div dir="auto" class="">Hello all,
<div dir="auto" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="auto" class="">This debate introduce something I have never understand within the NCSG.</div>
<div dir="auto" class="">NCSG is composed with 2 constituencies : NCUC (the elder with more than 15 Years) and NPOC (founded 6 years ago). The NCUC is the Usées constituency, I understand for individual, and the NPOC is for organisations, not-for-profit organisations
among non-commercial stakeholders.</div>
<div dir="auto" class="">Please all, what is the difference between non-commercial and not-for-profit ?</div>
<div dir="auto" class="">I need a clarification about these concepts before introduce my comment/proposal.</div>
<div dir="auto" class="">Thank you un advance for tour nice attention.</div>
<div dir="auto" class="">Regards.</div>
<div dir="auto" class="">Olévié KOUAMI</div>
</div>
<br class="">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="">Le lun. 10 sept. 2018 12:53, Tapani Tarvainen <<a href="mailto:ncsg@tapani.tarvainen.info" class="">ncsg@tapani.tarvainen.info</a>> a écrit :<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Dear Farzaneh,<br class="">
<br class="">
This is actually good stuff, getting to concrete issues.<br class="">
You make some very good points.<br class="">
<br class="">
I'll pick on a few issues not yet covered by others:<br class="">
<br class="">
On Sep 09 14:15, farzaneh badii (<a href="mailto:farzaneh.badii@GMAIL.COM" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" class="">farzaneh.badii@GMAIL.COM</a>) wrote:<br class="">
<br class="">
> Note that you can be an individual member when your organization is<br class="">
> a member only if you have registered a domain name for noncommercial<br class="">
> use. This is in accordance with our charter.<br class="">
<br class="">
Yes (Raoul got this wrong). The rule is a bit problematic, it is<br class="">
difficult to enforce, but I guess it's sufficient to have it as<br class="">
grounds for the EC to expel someone if caught. <br class="">
<br class="">
I don't see it as particularly important, however, given the last<br class="">
sentence in 2.2.5: "Such membership is subject to Executive Committee<br class="">
review" - that would be enough for all categories of individual<br class="">
membership. Besides domains can be had for next to nothing or even for<br class="">
free (<a href="http://dot.tk/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">dot.tk</a> &c), so working around that is easy enough.<br class="">
<br class="">
> I think that individuals that belong to an ncsg organization member<br class="">
> ( either employee or members) should be able to be individual<br class="">
> members (I am one of them, so conflict of interest alert) and<br class="">
> additional members of their org and we can talk about limits later<br class="">
> but I don't think they should officially represent their org if they<br class="">
> want to keep their individual membership.<br class="">
<br class="">
There are problems either way. It is not just about voting: someone<br class="">
might represent NCSG in some working group, PDP or whatever, in their<br class="">
individual capacity, not endorsed by or representing the position of<br class="">
their organization. If we make such an exclusion rule that would not<br class="">
be possible. I don't think that would be good for NCSG.<br class="">
<br class="">
> According to our charter, individual members and official reps of<br class="">
> organizations are entitled to vote. Revoking this right with an<br class="">
> exception rule creates complications<br class="">
<br class="">
Right you are. It does. But so does every alternative.<br class="">
<br class="">
> And how about when those you reach out to don't respond to say their<br class="">
> preference? You won't send them a ballot?<br class="">
<br class="">
Technically that would be easy enough, if the rule is simply that<br class="">
they always lose their individual vote upon becoming official<br class="">
representative of an organization.<br class="">
<br class="">
I'm not convinced it'd be a good solution, however.<br class="">
<br class="">
Incidentally, I don't think we have a rule against a single individual<br class="">
representing multiple organizations either. It would have similar<br class="">
problems about voting in multiple roles and there'd be no such simple<br class="">
way to choose which gets the ballot if only one is allowed. (This has<br class="">
never happened in practice as far as I know.)<br class="">
<br class="">
On Sep 10 07:15, farzaneh badii (<a href="mailto:farzaneh.badii@GMAIL.COM" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" class="">farzaneh.badii@GMAIL.COM</a>) wrote:<br class="">
<br class="">
> Joly was not an individual member in the first place. But of course<br class="">
> since he was a member for so long and doesn't seem to have changed<br class="">
> the noncommercial nature of his activities in DNS it can be an easy<br class="">
> fix.<br class="">
<br class="">
Yes. There have been a number of such cases over the years, former<br class="">
representatives of organizations asking for their membership to be<br class="">
converted into an individual one. They've been dealt with the same<br class="">
way, asking them to apply for new individual membership. No big deal.<br class="">
<br class="">
> And we have not yet agreed on the rule not to have dual membership of<br class="">
> official reps as individual members too so really we don't remove those for<br class="">
> now, also applicable to you as you are still an individual member and an<br class="">
> official rep.<br class="">
> <br class="">
> if there is enough agreement to do that among the EC members and the NCSG<br class="">
> in the future, we can do so and put the rule down hopefully before the next<br class="">
> elections. since you are exactly in that situation I believe you have to<br class="">
> recuse yourself and let others talk.<br class="">
<br class="">
Surely no recusal rule would apply to this kind of discussion - indeed<br class="">
a discussion where those affected were not allowed to argue their case<br class="">
would be missing something important.<br class="">
<br class="">
Actually I don't think a recusal would be warranted even in EC<br class="">
decision making in this situation, although that is certainly<br class="">
debatable (but then I'd definitely give the constituency in question<br class="">
time to appoint another representative to NCSG EC).<br class="">
<br class="">
But, back to our charter.<br class="">
<br class="">
Member removal procedures have to be approved by the membership<br class="">
(2.2.6). A rule that says an individual member would lose their<br class="">
membership if they become representative of an organization would<br class="">
clearly fall under that, so it after the EC creates the rule it'd have<br class="">
to be subjected to membership approval (what that'd mean is not<br class="">
specified, perhaps a special vote). Even then such a rule would in<br class="">
effect mean removing members simply because we don't want them to vote<br class="">
even when the charter says they could, and I think that'd be at least<br class="">
stretching the spirit even if not against the letter of the charter.<br class="">
<br class="">
On the other hand disenfranchising members is something the Charter<br class="">
does not provide for at all, except for inactive members. So the<br class="">
proposed rule to prevent individual members from voting if they are<br class="">
official representatives at the same time would seem to require<br class="">
charter change. It might be possible to work around that, however,<br class="">
e.g., by approving representative appointment only on condition that<br class="">
the individual membership is put on inactive list (enforced by threat<br class="">
of removal). Not exactly pretty though.<br class="">
<br class="">
All alternatives I can see are problematic one way or another.<br class="">
<br class="">
It would really be better to deal with this with a charter change<br class="">
(lots of other things there that should be changed, too). And I don't<br class="">
think this is all that urgent, it's never been a big problem in<br class="">
practice. Discussion is good, however, in any case.<br class="">
<br class="">
-- <br class="">
Tapani Tarvainen<br class="">
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</body>
</html>