<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br clear="all"></div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Farzaneh </font></div></div></div></div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 3:41 PM Sam Lanfranco <<a href="mailto:lanfran@yorku.ca">lanfran@yorku.ca</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p class="MsoNormal"><big>Dear NCSG Colleagues,<u></u><u></u></big></p>
<big>
</big>
<p class="MsoNormal"><big>For private reasons I have been less
involved in
NCSG/NPOC for 2018. I have kept abreast of issues
and have long been concerned with those surrounding
organizational and
individual membership. I would like to comment here from several
slightly different
perspectives. <u></u><u></u></big></p>
<big>
</big>
<p class="MsoNormal"><big>First, while we come from the
non-commercial constituencies,
we address the concerns of the non-commercial constituencies. We
do not represent the
non-commercial constituency stakeholder group nor are we in any
formal way accountable
to it. We simply do our best.<u></u><u></u></big></p>
<big>
</big>
<p class="MsoNormal"><big>Organizational members may represent the
interests and
concerns of their organization, then again maybe <span></span>not. Let me be personal here.
When asked to
join NPOC and NCSG I had recently served as Chair of the Board
for Canadian
global health ngo CSIH. This was early in the ongoing
discussions around the Red
Cross domain name issue and concerns about health relate gTLDs.
<u></u><u></u></big></p>
<big>
</big>
<p class="MsoNormal"><big>After a couple of years my NGO effectively
untethered me,
leaving me to maintain a watching brief and reporting back on
issues that may
concern them. The rest of the time I could simple engage in
addressing the
concerns of the non-commercial constituency. My ngo views its
membership as part of its “good
works”. <span> </span>I simply do my
best and only report
back when a relevant issue emerges. I <span></span>do not speak on behalf of my
organizational
member. <u></u><u></u></big></p>
<big>
</big>
<p class="MsoNormal"><big>It would be interesting to know how many
organizational
members have a formal obligation to report back to their
organization, and how
many pre-clear their positions on, and participation in, ICANN
policy matters.
When that is not the case, being also an individual member with
the associated extra
votes raises troubling questions. That is why, although I could,
I have not
applied for individual membership.<u></u><u></u></big></p>
<big>
</big>
<p class="MsoNormal"><big>To cut this short, most of the serious
ICANN work is done
among us on a consensus basis. What is important is the
dialogue, the knowledge
sharing, and how hard working members produce useful outputs.
Voting is mainly
for selecting among ourselves those willing to put in even more
work in
essentially administrative leadership positions. Those we elect
do not have
extraordinary powers, they have extra duties. <span> </span>Voting is not about resolving
policy or
implementation issues.</big></p></div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><p class="MsoNormal"><big> <u></u><u></u></big></p>
<big>
</big>
<p class="MsoNormal"><big>This leaves me to wonder why we do not
simply have one
membership, and one vote, per member. Even the large
organization small
organization distinction makes little sense. </big></p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Totally agree Sam. Why we are giving organizations more voting weight than individual members while what they do more or less is the same at NCSG is a mystry to me. Sometimes organizations have one member or employee! Orgs are not giving bigger dues (we don't charge dues) they are not contributing more than individuals do in any other way. </div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><p class="MsoNormal"><big>We, individually or
representing
the express positions of our organizations, bring evidence,
logic, and context
to bear when deliberating policy and implementation issues. Hard
fought battles
still end in consensus. They do not end because the vote was
51:49 and “ever
vote counts”. <span> </span>What is
important is the
integrity of the process and the quality of the consensual
outputs. The scale
and scope of membership and voting rights should reflect this.
As they stand
they address things that are really a non-issue here. <br>
</big></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><big>While I don't expect this to happen in the
short run, I would support
simplifying participation to one membership and one vote, and
returning our energies to producing ICANN deliverables. <u></u><u></u></big></p>
<big>
</big>
<p class="MsoNormal"><big>Sam L., NPOC</big><u></u><u></u></p>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="m_-2835348860657886202moz-signature" cols="72">--
------------------------------------------------
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也
------------------------------------------------
Visiting Prof, Xi'an Jaiotong-Liverpool Univ, Suzhou, China
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus), Econ, York U., CANADA
email: <a class="m_-2835348860657886202moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca" target="_blank">Lanfran@Yorku.ca</a> Skype: slanfranco
blog: <a class="m_-2835348860657886202moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com" target="_blank">https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com</a>
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852</pre>
</div>
</blockquote></div></div>