New member admission process and member databases

Mon Sep 22 19:19:09 EEST 2014

Hi Olivier,

just to clarify here, being a non-profit organization is not enough
condition to become NCSG member, it needs to be non-commercial too.
I think that was said several time, but better to reiterate : NCUC has
organizations and individuals as members, while NPOC has organizations
only. better to read their charters to understand their missions.

Best,

Rafik

2014-09-23 8:28 GMT+09:00 Olévié Kouami <olivierkouami at gmail.com>:

> Hi all,
>
> Thank you Lori for this clarification.
> Our beloved and late Alain Berranger (may hios soul RIP) has explained
> to me that NPOC is for for the Not-for-Profit organizations and NCUC
> for individuals with non-commercial concerns.
> It's very good to know the origin of this situation.
> Thanks again Lori, Milton, Rafik and Avri for these explanations.
> Warmest greetings.
> -Olévié-
>
>
> 2014-09-22 17:55 GMT+00:00 Lori Schulman <lori.schulman at ascd.org>:
> >
> > Dear All,
> >
> >
> >
> > I am speaking as an individual representative of ASCD on this string and
> not as member of the NPOC-EC or NCSG-EC.    The NPOC EC is drafting its own
> response.
> >
> >
> >
> > I think that Martin's points are valid as there is confusion as to the
> difference and meaning of the constituencies.   The organizational
> structure adds to that confusion.  Milton's vast institutional knowledge
> certainly adds some clarity about how the situation has evolved but I want
> to point out a few things.  First of all, Section 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 of NPOC
> charter requires that members be organizations not individuals.  So, NPOC
> cannot start admitting individuals at any time.   NPOC was organized by a
> group of concerned nonprofits because there are points were NCUC and
> nonprofit organizational interests diverged...primarily in the area of the
> protection of organizational names.  While we are aligned very closely with
> issues regarding access and free speech, there are areas of concern
> regarding the security of the internet as it related to the misuse of
> organizational names for fundraising and fraud.  Some of the rights
> protection mechanisms that were being considered for commercial entities
> were of strong interest to nonprofits particularly those with a global
> brand presence.  There were other issues as well and a lot of negotiating.
> I was not part of the those negotiations at the time.  However, there are
> others who were from the nonprofit org side who may want to chime in about
> what those discussions entailed and why the outcome is what it is.
> >
> >
> >
> > Whether or not constituencies are still a good idea is certainly a topic
> for discussion.  My own feeling is that while nonprofit orgs may have some
> similar concerns to commercial entities in the name space there are many
> areas where they diverge when it comes to talking about access and
> accountability.     There is a need for a home for nonprofit organizations
> as organizations.  For years, NCUC was that home.  However, there was
> enough interest generated within the orgs themselves that NPOC was born.
> >
> >
> >
> > Lori
> >
> >
> >
> > Lori S. Schulman · General Counsel
> > 1703 North Beauregard Street
> >
> > Alexandria, VA  22311-1714
> >
> > P 703-575-5678 · Lori.Schulman at ascd.org
> > [image: cid:image001.png at 01CC81E2.512C46F0]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of
> Milton L Mueller
> > Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 1:14 PM
> > To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> > Subject: Re: New member admission process and member databases
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Learn the secrets to great leadership practices at the ASCD Conference
> on Educational Leadership, October 31-November 2, 2014 in Orlando, Florida.
> Featured presenters include Todd Whitaker, Baruti Kafele, Robyn Jackson,
> and Carol Ann Tomlinson. Register NOW at www.ascd.org/cel.
> >
> > This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of
> >
> > the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that
> is
> >
> > confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient
> or
> >
> > have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy,
> > distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please
> notify the
> > sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message
> and any
> >
> > attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus
> free.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Olévié Ayaovi Agbenyo KOUAMI
> Responsable projet CERGI-Education (http://www.cergibs.com)
> CEO de INTIC4DEV (http://www.intic4dev.org)
> SG de ESTETIC  (http://www.estetic.tg)
> Membre de ISoc (www.isoc.org <http://www.isoc.org/>) & du FOSSFA (
> www.fossfa.net)
> ICANN-NPOC Communications Committee Chair (http://www.icann.org/ et
> http://www.npoc.org/)
> BP : 851 - Tél.: (228) 90 98 86 50 / (228) 98 43 27 72
> Skype : olevie1 FB : @olivier.kouami.3 Twitter : #oleviek Lomé - Togo
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20140922/63745f74/attachment.htm>