Procedures/Individual/organizations membership at NCSG

[farzaneh badii]

Please read the charter Raoul. Please do:

"An individual who is a member of or employee of a noncommercial
organization, which is itself a member of the NCSG, may apply for, or
retain membership, in the NCSG only under the first criteria for individual
membership, i.e. be an individual noncommercial *registrant*. Such
membership is subject to Executive Committee review."


First criteria of individual membership: "1.  An Individual who has
registered domain name(s) for personal, family or other noncommercial use;
or"




On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 6:59 AM Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> And we could have this technical solution in place. But then what would
>> happen if official representative opts for voting in an individual
>> capacity? And what would happen if that org is not informed about the
>> decision and does not check-in for the elections? Then that org would
>> not have someone to vote and check in for them.  We can't verify or
>> force the official rep to coordinate with her org. If the official rep
>> wants to vote as an individual member, and wants her org to also vote in
>> the elections, what should be done? Will she talk to the organization and
>> not be their official member for the elections and get someone else to vote
>> ? How can an organization so quickly just appoint someone else as official
>> rep who probably has no idea about NCSG and its elections especially when
>> they don't have additional reps? How can that be procedurally done
>> right, meaning how do they inform us, in what time span etc ?
>>
>
> All this^ can be rectified with the simplification I already suggested -
> don't give the dual voters a choice. The rationale goes, if they're
> officially representing their organisation, they are surely expected to
> vote accordingly - not giving their voting power to the alternative
> representative and voting against that in an individual capacity. In the
> case of having two voting memberships the organisational vote would be the
> one to use. The individual membership should really be used as a fallback
> membership to stay an NCSG member despite leadership changes in the
> representation and other circumstances.
>
>
>> Then it comes to one member orgs. Some small orgs are one member/one
>> employee organizations. what would happen if one person wants to vote as an
>> individual member but does not have a representative to check in and vote
>> on behalf of the organization?
>>
>
> I don't understand why would this be a problem? They could vote only once
> anyway.
>
>
>> Note that you can be an individual member when your organization is a
>> member  only if you have registered a domain name for noncommercial use.
>> This is in accordance with our charter.
>>
>
> I don't think this is true. There are other possible criteria to join the
> NCSG as an individual, than having a domain. As far as I understand, that
> has nothing to do with whether "their" organisation is already a member.
>
>
>> I think that individuals that belong to an ncsg organization member (
>> either employee or members) should be able to be individual members (I
>> am one of them, so conflict of interest alert) and additional members of
>> their org and we can talk about limits later but I don't think they
>> should officially represent their org if they want to keep their individual
>> membership.
>>
>
> This is the worst thing in these new guidelines: if they want someone else
> to take over the representation of their organisation, they would have to
> re-apply to become a member for the NCSG, since their membership would be
> rendered void. It's a very clumsy way of preventing double voting.
>
>
>> According to our charter, individual members and official reps of
>> organizations are entitled to vote. Revoking this right with an
>> exception rule creates complications and I think is not the best course of
>> action. It is better to ask them to decide beforehand. I did ask the dual
>> official reps and individual members the previous round of elections to
>> decide what they wanted to do voluntarily (either vote as individuals or
>> official reps and not both). Some said there is no rule against it so
>> decided to keep it that way, some had a lot of coordination and spent time
>> on what to do and then appointed another representative who was not an
>> individual member, and some accepted to be the official rep and not an
>> individual member.
>>
>> And how about when those you reach out to don't respond to say their
>> preference? You won't send them a ballot?
>>
>
> Yes, let's not give the organisational reps a choice. I think it really is
> as easy as that. We just need to add a little piece in the application
> form, to make the exception known to all the new people applying for
> membership. We should also reach out to all dual voters to make this change
> explicitly clear - I had the impression that there were less than five of
> them, out of our ~600 members. I see this as the best way, at least
> compared with forcing people to re-apply after they're done with their
> tenure as the Official Representative.
>
> -Raoul
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 12:06 PM Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> To reiterate, we can write into our election guideline that "NCSG
>>> members can vote only once per election" and implement a technical (as
>>> opposed to manual) solution that eliminates double voting. It's good that
>>> we have this talk now, before our new registry supplier has finished their
>>> work with our brand new system, that we're paying a hefty sum for.
>>>
>>> I suggested comparing names of organisational representatives and
>>> individual members and removing duplicates before sending the ballot.
>>> Those, who have dual voting memberships could have just the organisational
>>> vote, or a choice of either - not both. I would simplify by just allowing
>>> the organisation's vote in that particular, and rather rare case. Changing
>>> peoples' membership status is a measure way overboard.
>>>
>>> Which part of my suggestion seemed arbitrary, or why do you think that
>>> it would not work?
>>>
>>> -Raoul
>>>
>>> On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 at 18:29, Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry but that is not going to work and it will be arbitrary.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So you are insisting of tampering with memberships, when we should be
>>>> thinking of the best way to eliminate double voting. Could you at least
>>>> tell us, why do you think my suggestion is arbitrary? I've only tried to
>>>> save us from pages of hindering procedures and rules that is like shooting
>>>> flies with a cannon. You have still not given me one good reason, why we
>>>> should eliminate dual memberships, besides double voting.
>>>>
>>>> -Raoul
>>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20180910/3a170afd/attachment.htm>