New member admission process and member databases

[Martin Pablo Silva Valent]

Thank you really much Milton, a  really usefull comment for me.

Best regards,

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 14:14 GMT-03:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>:

>  Martin
>
> Some useful history for you. Prior to the GNSO reorganization,
> constituencies _*were*_ the basic organizational units of the GNSO.
> However, the noncommercial users constituency (NCUC) was outnumbered by
> commercial user constituencies 3 to 1, and thus had no influence
> whatsoever.
>
>
>
> In order to balance representation, some board-inspired reforms came up
> with the idea of broader stakeholder groups, which would be balanced
> between contracted parties (registrars and registries) and non-contracted
> or “user” parties (commercial and noncommercial stakeholder groups).
>
>
>
> Under the new system Stakeholder Groups (SGs) became key units of the
> ICANN regime and as such commanded certain staff and support resources. We
> told ICANN staff at the time that it made no sense to continue to have
> constituencies AND SGs. Indeed, none of the contracted parties have
> “constituencies” any more. NCUC fought like hell to have an integrated SG
> so that we could avoid the organizational complexity and end user confusion
> that would come from a two-tiered process. We only partially succeeded, due
> to some really silly political reasons that we don’t have time to go into
> here.
>
>  One of the problems with constituencies is that if you succeed in
> creating one, you command support resources. So there is kind of an
> artificial incentive to break off from larger groups and form your own
> “constituency” so that you can be its officer and get travel support and
> whatever. In the commercial SG, which already had 3 existing
> constituencies, they refused to dissolve into the larger SG. As a result,
> Commercial SG constituencies have turned into protected fiefdoms which have
> actually outlawed the creation of any new constituency groupings that are
> not approved by the existing ones!
>
>
>
> There are, in fact, no significant differences in the issue and policy
> perspectives of NPOC and NCUC. NCUC admits individual users, but most of
> its members are still organizations – and NPOC could decide to admit
> individual users tomorrow.
>
>
>
> I think your analysis of the problem has it backwards. The constituencies
> are the problem, not the SG structure. We should abolish constituencies, as
> the contracting parties already have. We should have an integrated SG, and
> allow ad hoc interest groups to form within it around specific policy
> issues
>
>
>
> The best way to resolve these problems is to dissolve constituencies
> altogether and make the noncommercial/civil society presence in GNSO an
> integrated Noncommercial Stakeholders Group.
>
>
>
> *From:* NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] *On Behalf Of
> *Martin Pablo Silva Valent
> *Sent:* Monday, September 22, 2014 11:57 AM
> *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> *Subject:* Re: [NCSG-Discuss] New member admission process and member
> databases
>
>
>
> 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/e5a2360d/attachment.htm>