<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">Thanks Amr, I think
you have touched on one of my concerns. While we love having
organizational members, as a general rule (to the best of my
knowledge, and I have not studied this at all) they are not
fielding representatives who are staffing the pdps, writing
the comments, or running for council. Thus, to those of us
toiling away at the coalface, it is hard to tell what their
views are.</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">cheers Stephanie</font></font><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2018-09-14 09:38, Amr Elsadr wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BF99A24D-BB4B-4BAD-A41D-B6F4A5196BBE@icannpolicy.ninja">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
Hi,
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I’m personally in favor of weighted voting, but do
acknowledge that some complexities in membership regulations
need to be associated with it.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Organizational members are meant to represent a
broader base of views and decision making processes than
individuals do. That may be the result of consensus building of
the staff or members within the organization. I do not believe
that equating that with an individual’s view is desirable. This
isn’t a question of deference to institutions, but rather a
question of actual representation. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Also, it might be worthwhile to note that not all
NCSG organizational members participate in the GNSO in the same
manner. I can think of only a few organizations like EFF, The
Heritage Foundation, IP Justice and Article 19, whose
representatives have made significant contributions to policy
development, and have funded their staff members’ physical
participation at ICANN meetings (no offense meant to other orgs
I might have overlooked). I believe this is something the NCSG
should encourage. We don’t require membership fees, nor do I
believe we should, but organizations dedicating funds to active
noncommercial representation in ICANN processes is a great thing
for us. Sure, it’d be even greater if the motivation to do this
isn’t that the organization will be rewarded with weighted
voting, but I doubt they really care about that. An organization
that dedicated, time, effort and funds to noncommercial
representation at ICANN likely has other motives than voting
power within NCSG.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Having said that, it makes no sense to me that
individual members who participate in the decision-making
processes of theses organizations have voting rights in NCSG
elections, amendments to the charter, operating procedures, etc.
The whole idea of weighted voting is that the views of those
individual members are meant to be reflected in the org’s
weighted voting power.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">There will likely be many nuances to this, such as
differentiating between orgs where the staff and/or members
actually do influence the orgs’ voting decisions. I’m sure there
are others. I commend our Stakeholder Group Chair for attempting
to deal with this issue, instead of brushing it aside as a topic
that is too complex to deal with. I encourage her to continue,
and encourage our incoming Chair to see this through, if it
isn’t resolved before the end of ICANN 63.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Thanks.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Amr<br class="">
<div><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Sep 14, 2018, at 5:41 AM, Raphaël
Beauregard-Lacroix <<a
href="mailto:rbeauregardlacroix@GMAIL.COM" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">rbeauregardlacroix@GMAIL.COM</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">Hi Milton
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Would you care to elaborate more on your
opposition to 1 member-1 vote?</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">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 class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">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 class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I understand that this might have been put
in place in a time where NCUC transitioned into
something opened to individuals.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">There might also be other good reasons to
have weighted voting. I am willing to be convinced :)</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">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 class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">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 class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">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 class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Best,</div>
</div>
<br class="">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="">On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 10:43 AM
Mueller, Milton L <<a
href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">milton@gatech.edu</a>>
wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="white" link="blue" vlink="purple"
class="" lang="EN-US">
<div class="m_-8129369619820045633WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"
class="">I disagree, Stephanie.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"
class="">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.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"
class=""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"
class="">I agree with Sam that voting is
relatively unimportant except when it comes to
election of officers.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"
class="">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.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"
class=""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"
class="">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.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"
class=""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"
class=""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"
class="">Dr. Milton L Mueller</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"
class="">Professor,
<a href="http://spp.gatech.edu/"
target="_blank" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:#0563c1" class="">School of
Public Policy</span></a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"
class="">Georgia Institute of Technology</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"
class="">Internet Governance Project
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"
class=""><a
href="http://internetgovernance.org/"
target="_blank" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:#0563c1" class="">http://internetgovernance.org/</span></a>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"
class=""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"
class=""> </span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue
1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt" class="">
<div class="">
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid
#e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"
class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b class=""><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"
class="">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"
class=""> NCSG-Discuss [mailto:<a
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU"
target="_blank" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>]
<b class="">On Behalf Of </b>Stephanie
Perrin<br class="">
<b class="">Sent:</b> Tuesday, September
11, 2018 8:24 AM<br class="">
<b class="">To:</b> <a
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU"
target="_blank" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br
class="">
<b class="">Subject:</b> Re:
Procedures/Individual/organizations
membership at NCSG</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class=""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Lucida
Grande",serif" class="">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></p>
<p class=""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Lucida
Grande",serif" class="">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></p>
<p class=""><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Lucida
Grande",serif" class="">Stephanie
Perrin</span></p>
<div class="">
<p class="MsoNormal">On 2018-09-10 16:14,
farzaneh badii wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"
class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
class=""><br class="" clear="all">
</span></p>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
class="">Farzaneh </span>
</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"> </p>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<p class="MsoNormal">On Sun, Sep 9, 2018
at 3:41 PM Sam Lanfranco <<a
href="mailto:lanfran@yorku.ca"
target="_blank" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">lanfran@yorku.ca</a>>
wrote:</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"
class="">
<div class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt" class="">Dear
NCSG Colleagues,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt" class="">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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt" class="">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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt" class="">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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt" class="">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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt" class="">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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt" class="">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></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"
class="">
<div class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt" class="">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></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
class="">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. </span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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"
class="">
<div class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt" class="">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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt" class="">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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt" class="">Sam
L., NPOC</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
</p>
<pre class="">-- </pre>
<pre class="">------------------------------------------------</pre>
<pre class="">"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured</pre>
<pre class="">in an unjust state" -Confucius</pre>
<pre class=""> <span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif" class="">邦有道，</span><span style="font-family:"Microsoft JhengHei",sans-serif" class="">贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也</span></pre>
<pre class="">------------------------------------------------</pre>
<pre class="">Visiting Prof, Xi'an Jaiotong-Liverpool Univ, Suzhou, China</pre>
<pre class="">Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus), Econ, York U., CANADA</pre>
<pre class="">email: <a href="mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca" target="_blank" class="" moz-do-not-send="true">Lanfran@Yorku.ca</a> Skype: slanfranco</pre>
<pre class="">blog: <a href="https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com/" target="_blank" class="" moz-do-not-send="true">https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com</a></pre>
<pre class="">Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852</pre>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>