New member admission process and member databases

[Martin Pablo Silva Valent]

Avri,



I am not going to start a group to change the NCSG chart! I am just talking
about a concern, an idea, to improve NCSG structure.



In addition, I know no one is going to bite my head off, is just an
expression to clarify that my comment is just that, a comment and nothing
more.



Thanks for the reply.



Cheers,



Martin.

Martín P. Silva Valent
Abogado / Lawyer
+54 911 64993943
mpsilvavalent at gmail.com

--------------------------------------------

Este email, incluyendo adjuntos, podría contener información  confidencial
protegida por ley y es para uso exclusivo de su destinatario. Si  Ud. no es
el destinatario, se le advierte que cualquier uso, difusión, copia o
 retención de este email o su contenido está estrictamente prohibido. Si
Ud.  recibio este email por error, por favor avise inmediatamente al
remitente por  teléfono o email y borre el mismo de su computadora. / This
 e-mail, including any attachments, may contain information that is
protected by  law as privileged and confidential, and is transmitted for
the sole use of the  intended recipient. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby  notified that any use, dissemination, copying or
retention of this e-mail or the  information contained herein is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this  e-mail in error, please immediately
notify the sender by telephone or reply  e-mail, and permanently delete
this e-mail from your computer system.

2014-09-22 13:25 GMT-03:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:

> Hi,
>
> I think I disagree with your prescription and would not want to be a
> member of the NCSG your note presages, but that is irrelevant.
>
> The charter can be amended as stated in the charter.  I
> recommend you organize an ad-hoc interest group to change it and see if
> you can get the votes in NCSG and the Board approval.
>
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Charter
>
> > 5.0 Amendments to the NCSG Charter.
> >
> > Proposals to amend this charter may be submitted by five (5) percent
> > of the then‑current members eligible to vote, based on the weighted
> > voting as defined in section 4.0. Proposals may also be put forward
> > by the NCSG‑EC or the ICANN Board of Directors or one of the Board's
> > committees.
> >
> > Amendments proposed by the NCSG members or the NCSG‑EC will only take
> > effect after there has been a membership review, approval by 60% vote
> > of NCSG members using the weighted voting defined in section 4.0 and
> > final review/approval by the ICANN Board of Directors. Amendments
> > proposed and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors or one of its
> > Committees will only take effect after membership review and approval
> > by 60% vote of the NCSG members using the weighted voting defined in
> > section 4.0.  The ICANN Board may require proposed amendments to be
> > posted for public comment prior to taking its decision on the
> > proposal.
>
> In the meantime, I hope more people can get involved in using the
> features and structure of the NCSG we have.
>
> Oh, and I repeat something I have said often before, any group that
> wants to create a new constituency has my offer of help with the process.
>
> avri
>
> Ps. As for biting off of heads.  I have only seen that once, a cat I had
> used to bite the heads off of the lizards while I was living on Kibbutz
> in the 1970s. When thinking about it, it is not something I see myself
> doing.
>
> On 22-Sep-14 11:56, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote:
> > Thanks all for the comments. They were helpful.
> >
> >
> >
> > I do understand how it works now, what I am saying is that for me it
> > seems dysfunctional, and that NCUC members and NPOC members have
> > different stakes to defend, and creating this third instance (the
> > NCSG) where everything mixes up seems unnecessary messy, although I
> > can see a role of umbrella for the NCSG.
> >
> >
> >
> > There is a conceptual mistake in the design of the NCSG. NCUC and
> > NPOC are different stakeholders, since they identify different kinds
> > of stakes, the reality of non for profit is completely different from
> > an individual user, even when they are both non-commercial. In
> > addition, even though the GNSO demands to have a NCSG, the proper way
> > to deal with this NPOC/NCUC diversity is no to mix them but to allow
> > them to define themselves, something that ion the current process is
> > diluted.
> >
> >
> >
> > In other words, what we call constituencies in this case should be
> > the main consensus builder, since they are the closest to the
> > stakeholders. Having the NCSG build consensus for them does not
> > really make it rough, it makes it confusing by disregarding the real
> > stakeholder group voice, the constituencies voice. The NCSG should be
> > the result of the different consensus reached in the constituencies.
> > I can understand creating new constituencies for a better structure,
> > but I cannot see useful to have individual members in the NCSG that
> > don’t belong to either NCUC or NPOC, if another constituency is
> > necessary to hold another specific type of voices then another one
> > should be build.
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Martín.
> >
> > Martín P. Silva Valent Abogado / Lawyer +54 911 64993943
> > mpsilvavalent at gmail.com
> >
> > --------------------------------------------
> >
> > Este email, incluyendo adjuntos, podría contener información
> > confidencial protegida por ley y es para uso exclusivo de su
> > destinatario. Si  Ud. no es el destinatario, se le advierte que
> > cualquier uso, difusión, copia o retención de este email o su
> > contenido está estrictamente prohibido. Si Ud.  recibio este email
> > por error, por favor avise inmediatamente al remitente por  teléfono
> > o email y borre el mismo de su computadora. / This e-mail, including
> > any attachments, may contain information that is protected by  law as
> > privileged and confidential, and is transmitted for the sole use of
> > the  intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you
> > are hereby  notified that any use, dissemination, copying or
> > retention of this e-mail or the  information contained herein is
> > strictly prohibited. If you have received this  e-mail in error,
> > please immediately notify the sender by telephone or reply  e-mail,
> > and permanently delete this e-mail from your computer system.
> >
> > 2014-09-22 12:23 GMT-03:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
> >
> >> Hi Martin,
> >>
> >> I hope that I can clarify the situation here for you . as laywe, I
> >> think you will find some time to read the NCSG charter which
> >> explain the principles and give you better understanding :
> >> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Charter
> >>
> >> I just never fully understood why NCUC and NPOC do not handle their
> >> own
> >>> application process.
> >>>
> >>
> >> NCUC and NPOC handle their applications process, NCSG only approve
> >> NCSG members who may or not want to join constituencies, it is up
> >> to NCUC and NPOC to approve them as their members.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Why do people need to be NCSG first?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> It would seem more useful that the NCSG where just an umbrella for
> >> NPOC
> >>> and NCUC to help coordinate the NCUC and NPOC leaders.
> >>>
> >>
> >> yes we need NCSG, in fact constituencies cannot exist without it,
> >> they can be created and disbanded while the SG remains. it is not
> >> just in umbrella, a concept which may lead to the misunderstanding.
> >> it has the committees populated with representation from
> >> constituencies and also elected officers like the NCSG chair and
> >> also the election of  GNSO councillors to represent the whole
> >> stakeholder group.
> >>
> >> I think you observed  several times how many policies are discussed
> >> and statement done at the SG level.
> >>
> >> the stakeholder group model also exist in other parts of GNSO such
> >> the contracted party (registries and registrars )where there is no
> >> constituency per se.
> >>
> >> The present way of having NCSG members that are also NCUC and NPOC
> >>> creates a double representation that can be confusing, misleading
> >>> and dysfunctional. Am I clear with this idea?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> there is confusion here, a NCSG member can be just a NCSG member
> >> without joining constituencies or joining both or just 1 ot them  .
> >> joining a constituency may be important for a member to work on
> >> some topic if s/he wants but it is not mandatory. there is no
> >> double representation but more diversity of representation and
> >> affiliation. I don't think you disagree with this.
> >>
> >> I think the NCSG should not act like a stakeholder itself but as a
> >>> coalition of the stakeholder that make part of it, therefore, the
> >>> NCSG would just be the place where NCUC and NPOC community
> >>> leaders meet to take things up. If not, it seems that the
> >>> decision made in the NCUC or in NPOC through the consensus are
> >>> not valued.
> >>>
> >>
> >> if NCUC or NPOC want to make their statements or own positions,
> >> they are not prevented to do so. having NCSG ensure having a more
> >> common positions and avoid building silos that won't communicate
> >> with each other and weaken them  . at NCSG we work to build a
> >> position that have consensus of larger group, don't you think that
> >> is really strong? constituencies can also send their own statement
> >> to defend other points than a common position if they want.
> >>
> >> It makes no sense that the same members that debate and reach
> >> consensus in
> >>> NCUC and NPOC separately are the ones that debate about the same
> >>> decision and reach a new and different consensus in the NCSG. The
> >>> decision of NPOC and NCUC should be considered equal inside the
> >>> NCSG and the NCSG decision should be a higher hierarchy consensus
> >>> that brings together the already consensus made in NCUC and NPOC
> >>> (a consensus of consensus in an upper level than the bottom
> >>> stakeholder). I believe than the current process takes away
> >>> consensus from the real bottoms, NPOC and NCUC, and brings a
> >>> dysfunctional dynamic where NCUC and NPOC voices, especially
> >>> NPOC’s, are diluted for no real reason thanks to a double
> >>> representation of NCUC and NPCO members in the NCSG as NCSG
> >>> members.
> >>>
> >>
> >> the constituencies have the same representation in the executive
> >> and policy committees, so they are able to provide their positions
> >> via their representatives who should liaise with their
> >> constituencies, in particular for the latter regarding the
> >> policies. at NCSG ,we allow all members to communicate and debate
> >> together and so avoid a silo effect that will prevent members of
> >> different groups from discussing with each other.
> >>
> >> we have real bottom-up process here: the individual and
> >> organizational members who can participate directly at NCSG level
> >> and expressing their ideas . don't you think that is really
> >> powerful and avoid voices trapped in structures level?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Just and idea, don't bite my head off!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> no worry, all comments are welcome, it is learning space for
> >> everybody. hope that clarified things for you.
> >>
> >> Rafik
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2014-09-22 11:10 GMT-03:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:
> >>>
> >>> agree completely.
> >>>>
> >>>> avri
> >>>>
> >>>> On 22-Sep-14 04:40, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> >>>>> Which brings me to one technical issue I've been harping
> >>>>> about to various people privately for some time: I see little
> >>>>> point in maintaining three distinct member databases, when
> >>>>> two are (required to be) subsets of the third. It would be
> >>>>> much easier to maintain just NCSG member database and have
> >>>>> constituency membership there as an attribute (of course
> >>>>> still leaving it up to each constituency to decide who they
> >>>>> accept as their members, they just would not need to maintain
> >>>>> members' contact info &c separately). This would make for an
> >>>>> easy workflow for the three ECs, one place for members to
> >>>>> check their membership details, &c.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20140922/7db4f8ad/attachment.htm>