<div dir="auto">Hi all<div dir="auto">I will suggest like earlier said, since are not a paying membership yet the issue with of allocation of two votes is not necessary at this time.</div><div dir="auto">It should have be the other way if we are paying membership and organisations pay slittly higher than individual.</div><div dir="auto">And since that is not the case can we simply offer every member (individual and organisation) a single vote.</div><div dir="auto">Thanks</div><div dir="auto">Remmy</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Wed, 12 Sep 2018, 5:28 a.m. Tapani Tarvainen, <<a href="mailto:ncsg@tapani.tarvainen.info">ncsg@tapani.tarvainen.info</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Stephanie,<br>
<br>
Yes, I agree we can ask that, but that doesn't solve the problem<br>
completely: their situation could change later.<br>
<br>
Can we oblige members to notify us when they join a member<br>
organization later?<br>
<br>
When an organization joins, can we ask it to check how many of<br>
its members are already individual members?<br>
<br>
If some such event results in more than X members of a member<br>
organization as individual members without anybody noticing until<br>
after the fact, can we remove some of them, and which one(s)?<br>
<br>
Even if it is legal, can we do any of those without changing the<br>
charter? I doubt it very much.<br>
<br>
Tapani<br>
<br>
On Sep 11 13:20, Stephanie Perrin (<a href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@MAIL.UTORONTO.CA" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">stephanie.perrin@MAIL.UTORONTO.CA</a>) wrote:<br>
<br>
> I certainly agree with you there Raoul, we should not store personal data<br>
> about participation in groups. Nothing prevents us from asking members to<br>
> indicate how many groups they participate in who are also members of<br>
> NCUC/NCSG.<br>
> <br>
> cheers Stephanie<br>
> On 2018-09-11 11:22 AM, Raoul Plommer wrote:<br>
> > <br>
> > We should try to make this uncomplicated, whilst protecting<br>
> > against undue influence of a particular organization. As to<br>
> > whether privacy law prevents us from asking members who they<br>
> > represent, I am consulting my legal contacts because I am sure<br>
> > there is a legally compliant way to do this. I do not share<br>
> > Raoul's view that this is "paranoid".<br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > Stephanie, we can't really monitor who are members of which<br>
> > organisation, outside the ICANN organisations and we can't store that<br>
> > information because of the GDPR. Being scared of an organisational<br>
> > takeover isn't a valid concern to store this kind of sensitive data,<br>
> > that's all I meant about being paranoid. I'll be gladly admitting my<br>
> > assumption false if your legal contacts tell you otherwise - I'm no<br>
> > lawyer after all.<br>
> > <br>
> > -Raoul<br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 at 17:43, Mueller, Milton L <<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">milton@gatech.edu</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">milton@gatech.edu</a>>> wrote:<br>
> > <br>
> > I disagree, Stephanie.<br>
> > <br>
> > Indeed, I think it’s completely absurd to have organizations that<br>
> > have 45,000 members with the same voting power as an individual.<br>
> > Many major noncommercial organizations will simply refuse to join<br>
> > a constituency with that kind of a voting structure. We make a<br>
> > pretty simple and flat voting structure, with large orgs, small<br>
> > orgs and individuals. There are more individuals than<br>
> > organizations, so it works out fairly balanced.<br>
> > <br>
> > I agree with Sam that voting is relatively unimportant except when<br>
> > it comes to election of officers.<br>
> > <br>
> > It takes a lot of trouble and time to organize a vote, so the idea<br>
> > that every administrative decision has to be voted on by the<br>
> > membership is impractical.<br>
> > <br>
> > For those unaware of the history, NCUC started as an<br>
> > organization-only constituency, and so did NPOC. Because of the<br>
> > problems many people have getting authorization to “represent”<br>
> > entire organizations, and in order to allow for broader<br>
> > participation, we allowed individual membership. We adjusted<br>
> > voting shares accordingly.<br>
> > <br>
> > Dr. Milton L Mueller<br>
> > <br>
> > Professor, School of Public Policy <<a href="http://spp.gatech.edu/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://spp.gatech.edu/</a>><br>
> > <br>
> > Georgia Institute of Technology<br>
> > <br>
> > Internet Governance Project<br>
> > <br>
> > <a href="http://internetgovernance.org/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://internetgovernance.org/</a><br>
> > <br>
> > *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:<a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>>] *On Behalf Of *Stephanie<br>
> > Perrin<br>
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 11, 2018 8:24 AM<br>
> > *To:* <a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>><br>
> > *Subject:* Re: Procedures/Individual/organizations membership at NCSG<br>
> > <br>
> > I agree. I think it is entirely problematic to provide more votes<br>
> > for larger organizations. I also share a concern about<br>
> > differentiating between the participation of a member as a rep of<br>
> > an organization, or as an individual. People should declare their<br>
> > status and that is an end of it. If a member who represents an<br>
> > organization has a strong personal view in a matter that is not<br>
> > supported by their organization, surely they can explain their<br>
> > viewpoint with a caveat.<br>
> > <br>
> > We should try to make this uncomplicated, whilst protecting<br>
> > against undue influence of a particular organization. As to<br>
> > whether privacy law prevents us from asking members who they<br>
> > represent, I am consulting my legal contacts because I am sure<br>
> > there is a legally compliant way to do this. I do not share<br>
> > Raoul's view that this is "paranoid". I think it is essential to<br>
> > have sound principles in place in our policies, to protect the<br>
> > diversity of our membership, and the essential human rights values<br>
> > of NCSG.<br>
> > <br>
> > Stephanie Perrin<br>
> > <br>
> > On 2018-09-10 16:14, farzaneh badii wrote:<br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > Farzaneh<br>
> > <br>
> > On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 3:41 PM Sam Lanfranco <<a href="mailto:lanfran@yorku.ca" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">lanfran@yorku.ca</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:lanfran@yorku.ca" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">lanfran@yorku.ca</a>>> wrote:<br>
> > <br>
> > Dear NCSG Colleagues,<br>
> > <br>
> > For private reasons I have been less involved in NCSG/NPOC<br>
> > for 2018. I have kept abreast of issues and have long been<br>
> > concerned with those surrounding organizational and<br>
> > individual membership. I would like to comment here from<br>
> > several slightly different perspectives.<br>
> > <br>
> > First, while we come from the non-commercial<br>
> > constituencies, we address the concerns of the<br>
> > non-commercial constituencies. We do not represent the<br>
> > non-commercial constituency stakeholder group nor are we<br>
> > in any formal way accountable to it. We simply do our best.<br>
> > <br>
> > Organizational members may represent the interests and<br>
> > concerns of their organization, then again maybe not. Let<br>
> > me be personal here. When asked to join NPOC and NCSG I<br>
> > had recently served as Chair of the Board for Canadian<br>
> > global health ngo CSIH. This was early in the ongoing<br>
> > discussions around the Red Cross domain name issue and<br>
> > concerns about health relate gTLDs.<br>
> > <br>
> > After a couple of years my NGO effectively untethered me,<br>
> > leaving me to maintain a watching brief and reporting back<br>
> > on issues that may concern them. The rest of the time I<br>
> > could simple engage in addressing the concerns of the<br>
> > non-commercial constituency. My ngo views its membership<br>
> > as part of its “good works”. I simply do my best and only<br>
> > report back when a relevant issue emerges. I do not speak<br>
> > on behalf of my organizational member.<br>
> > <br>
> > It would be interesting to know how many organizational<br>
> > members have a formal obligation to report back to their<br>
> > organization, and how many pre-clear their positions on,<br>
> > and participation in, ICANN policy matters. When that is<br>
> > not the case, being also an individual member with the<br>
> > associated extra votes raises troubling questions. That is<br>
> > why, although I could, I have not applied for individual<br>
> > membership.<br>
> > <br>
> > To cut this short, most of the serious ICANN work is done<br>
> > among us on a consensus basis. What is important is the<br>
> > dialogue, the knowledge sharing, and how hard working<br>
> > members produce useful outputs. Voting is mainly for<br>
> > selecting among ourselves those willing to put in even<br>
> > more work in essentially administrative leadership<br>
> > positions. Those we elect do not have extraordinary<br>
> > powers, they have extra duties. Voting is not about<br>
> > resolving policy or implementation issues.<br>
> > <br>
> > This leaves me to wonder why we do not simply have one<br>
> > membership, and one vote, per member. Even the large<br>
> > organization small organization distinction makes little<br>
> > sense.<br>
> > <br>
> > Totally agree Sam. Why we are giving organizations more<br>
> > voting weight than individual members while what they do more<br>
> > or less is the same at NCSG is a mystry to me. Sometimes<br>
> > organizations have one member or employee! Orgs are not giving<br>
> > bigger dues (we don't charge dues) they are not contributing<br>
> > more than individuals do in any other way.<br>
> > <br>
> > We, individually or representing the express positions of<br>
> > our organizations, bring evidence, logic, and context to<br>
> > bear when deliberating policy and implementation issues.<br>
> > Hard fought battles still end in consensus. They do not<br>
> > end because the vote was 51:49 and “ever vote counts”.<br>
> > What is important is the integrity of the process and the<br>
> > quality of the consensual outputs. The scale and scope of<br>
> > membership and voting rights should reflect this. As they<br>
> > stand they address things that are really a non-issue here.<br>
> > <br>
> > While I don't expect this to happen in the short run, I<br>
> > would support simplifying participation to one membership<br>
> > and one vote, and returning our energies to producing<br>
> > ICANN deliverables.<br>
> > <br>
> > Sam L., NPOC<br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > --<br>
> > <br>
> > ------------------------------------------------<br>
> > <br>
> > "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured<br>
> > <br>
> > in an unjust state" -Confucius<br>
> > <br>
> > 邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也<br>
> > <br>
> > ------------------------------------------------<br>
> > <br>
> > Visiting Prof, Xi'an Jaiotong-Liverpool Univ, Suzhou, China<br>
> > <br>
> > Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus), Econ, York U., CANADA<br>
> > <br>
> > email:Lanfran@Yorku.ca <mailto:<a href="mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Lanfran@Yorku.ca</a>> Skype: slanfranco<br>
> > <br>
> > blog:<a href="https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com</a><br>
> > <br>
> > Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852<br>
> > <br>
> <br>
</blockquote></div>