Procedures/Individual/organizations membership at NCSG

[Raoul Plommer]

>
> "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"
>

OK. Thanks for pointing that out. I was wrong about that particular nuance.

This is impossible to monitor effectively. We can't collect information
about memberships to organisations, other than the ones inside ICANN
SO/ACs. I can't really fathom, what that clause is good for. If there
really was a campaign going on, it would be very cheap to get a domain,
just for that. Also, how are we going to check who is a registrant in the
post-GDPR world?

Now we're  about to stipulate ourselves into a situation, where even well
served organisational reps would have no membership in the NCSG while they
had left their post as an OR and were waiting for the NCSG EC to accept
their individual membership application. This could take a month or a few
and could create a number of obstacles in effective participation. It
should go without saying, that this creates unnecessary workload for the EC
and uncertainties for the volunteer.

So I would refine my previous suggestion a little:

1. Add a box to the membership application form saying that "In an
election, an individual member also being the official representative of a
member organisation can *only* vote as the organisation's official
representative." - I know it's not pretty but it's ample proof of
acknowledgement until we fix the charter.
2. Reach out to all dual voting members and tell them they can use only
their OR-vote in the elections. I think there were less than five of us.
3. Remove duplicate names from the ballot list.
4. Scrap the plan on eliminating dual memberships.

P.S. This looks interesting...
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Membership


On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 at 14:24, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/fd55f7f8/attachment.htm>