<div dir="ltr">Hi Milton<div><br></div><div>Would you care to elaborate more on your opposition to 1 member-1 vote?</div><div><br></div><div>To me it appears that the vote is attached to the quality of member and that an organisation is not "more a member" than an individual.</div><div><br></div><div>I also find it surprising that an organisation would refuse to join the constituency if it is not given more votes than an individual?</div><div><br></div><div>I understand that this might have been put in place in a time where NCUC transitioned into something opened to individuals.</div><div><br></div><div>There might also be other good reasons to have weighted voting. I am willing to be convinced :)</div><div><br></div><div>Also as Re to what Paul mentioned above: I feel that an org who is registered as a member only represents itself (as a legal person) and not its members or employees or whichever else constituent part it may have, even more so in case of large organisations... </div><div><br></div><div>And is it the case that someone may choose to participate to NCUC (that is becoming a member) "through" an organisation without being, let us say, specially authorised by that organisation to participate in NCUC? </div><div><br></div><div>Otherwise, even if extra-large orgs deem it necessary to delegate NCUC business to several people, I still think that such org should only have one vote. </div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 10:43 AM Mueller, Milton L <<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu">milton@gatech.edu</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="m_-8129369619820045633WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">I disagree, Stephanie.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Indeed, I think it’s completely absurd to have organizations that have 45,000 members with the same voting power as an individual. Many major noncommercial organizations
will simply refuse to join a constituency with that kind of a voting structure. We make a pretty simple and flat voting structure, with large orgs, small orgs and individuals. There are more individuals than organizations, so it works out fairly balanced.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">I agree with Sam that voting is relatively unimportant except when it comes to election of officers.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">It takes a lot of trouble and time to organize a vote, so the idea that every administrative decision has to be voted on by the membership is impractical.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">For those unaware of the history, NCUC started as an organization-only constituency, and so did NPOC. Because of the problems many people have getting authorization
to “represent” entire organizations, and in order to allow for broader participation, we allowed individual membership. We adjusted voting shares accordingly.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Dr. Milton L Mueller<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Professor,
<a href="http://spp.gatech.edu/" target="_blank"><span style="color:#0563c1">School of Public Policy</span></a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Georgia Institute of Technology<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Internet Governance Project
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><a href="http://internetgovernance.org/" target="_blank"><span style="color:#0563c1">http://internetgovernance.org/</span></a>
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"> NCSG-Discuss [mailto:<a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" target="_blank">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Stephanie Perrin<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, September 11, 2018 8:24 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" target="_blank">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Procedures/Individual/organizations membership at NCSG<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Lucida Grande",serif">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. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Lucida Grande",serif">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.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Lucida Grande",serif">Stephanie Perrin</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 2018-09-10 16:14, farzaneh badii wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br clear="all">
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Farzaneh </span>
<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 3:41 PM Sam Lanfranco <<a href="mailto:lanfran@yorku.ca" target="_blank">lanfran@yorku.ca</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Dear NCSG Colleagues,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Organizational members may represent the interests and concerns of their organization, then again maybe 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.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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”. I simply do my best and only report back when a relevant issue emerges. I do not speak on behalf
of my organizational member. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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. Voting is not about resolving policy or implementation issues.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span 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. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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”. 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.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Sam L., NPOC</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<pre>-- <u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre>------------------------------------------------<u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre>"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured<u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre>in an unjust state" -Confucius<u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre> <span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">邦有道，</span><span style="font-family:"Microsoft JhengHei",sans-serif">贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也</span><u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre>------------------------------------------------<u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre>Visiting Prof, Xi'an Jaiotong-Liverpool Univ, Suzhou, China<u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre>Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus), Econ, York U., CANADA<u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre>email: <a href="mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca" target="_blank">Lanfran@Yorku.ca</a> Skype: slanfranco<u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre>blog: <a href="https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com" target="_blank">https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com</a><u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre>Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852<u></u><u></u></pre>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div>