<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">I agree. I think it
is entirely problematic to provide more votes for larger
organizations. I also share a concern about differentiating
between the participation of a member as a rep of an
organization, or as an individual. People should declare
their status and that is an end of it. If a member who
represents an organization has a strong personal view in a
matter that is not supported by their organization, surely
they can explain their viewpoint with a caveat. <br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">We should try to make
this uncomplicated, whilst protecting against undue influence
of a particular organization. As to whether privacy law
prevents us from asking members who they represent, I am
consulting my legal contacts because I am sure there is a
legally compliant way to do this. I do not share Raoul's view
that this is "paranoid". I think it is essential to have
sound principles in place in our policies, to protect the
diversity of our membership, and the essential human rights
values of NCSG.<br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Stephanie Perrin</font></font><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2018-09-10 16:14, farzaneh badii
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAN1qJvA82-jaux+RXTg-Z_f7rjHi4voP+PD46bUbadnEg4qiTw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<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" moz-do-not-send="true">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,</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. </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.</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. </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. </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.</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> </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. </big></p>
<big> </big>
<p class="MsoNormal"><big>Sam L., NPOC</big></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" moz-do-not-send="true">Lanfran@Yorku.ca</a> Skype: slanfranco
blog: <a class="m_-2835348860657886202moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com</a>
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852</pre>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>