Procedures/Individual/organizations membership at NCSG

[Olévié Kouami]

Hello all,

This debate introduce something I have never understand within the NCSG.
NCSG is composed with 2 constituencies : NCUC (the elder with more than 15
Years) and NPOC (founded 6 years ago). The NCUC is the Usées constituency,
I understand for individual, and the NPOC is for organisations,
not-for-profit organisations among non-commercial stakeholders.
Please all, what is the difference between non-commercial and
not-for-profit ?
I need a clarification about these concepts before introduce my
comment/proposal.
Thank you un advance for tour nice attention.
Regards.
Olévié KOUAMI

Le lun. 10 sept. 2018 12:53, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
a écrit :

> Dear Farzaneh,
>
> This is actually good stuff, getting to concrete issues.
> You make some very good points.
>
> I'll pick on a few issues not yet covered by others:
>
> On Sep 09 14:15, farzaneh badii (farzaneh.badii at GMAIL.COM) wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Yes (Raoul got this wrong). The rule is a bit problematic, it is
> difficult to enforce, but I guess it's sufficient to have it as
> grounds for the EC to expel someone if caught.
>
> I don't see it as particularly important, however, given the last
> sentence in 2.2.5: "Such membership is subject to Executive Committee
> review" - that would be enough for all categories of individual
> membership. Besides domains can be had for next to nothing or even for
> free (dot.tk &c), so working around that is easy enough.
>
> > 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.
>
> There are problems either way. It is not just about voting: someone
> might represent NCSG in some working group, PDP or whatever, in their
> individual capacity, not endorsed by or representing the position of
> their organization. If we make such an exclusion rule that would not
> be possible. I don't think that would be good for NCSG.
>
> > According to our charter, individual members and official reps of
> > organizations are entitled to vote. Revoking this right with an
> > exception rule creates complications
>
> Right you are. It does. But so does every alternative.
>
> > And how about when those you reach out to don't respond to say their
> > preference? You won't send them a ballot?
>
> Technically that would be easy enough, if the rule is simply that
> they always lose their individual vote upon becoming official
> representative of an organization.
>
> I'm not convinced it'd be a good solution, however.
>
> Incidentally, I don't think we have a rule against a single individual
> representing multiple organizations either. It would have similar
> problems about voting in multiple roles and there'd be no such simple
> way to choose which gets the ballot if only one is allowed. (This has
> never happened in practice as far as I know.)
>
> On Sep 10 07:15, farzaneh badii (farzaneh.badii at GMAIL.COM) wrote:
>
> > Joly was not an individual member in the first place. But of course
> > since he was a member for so long and doesn't seem to have changed
> > the noncommercial nature of his activities in DNS it can be an easy
> > fix.
>
> Yes. There have been a number of such cases over the years, former
> representatives of organizations asking for their membership to be
> converted into an individual one. They've been dealt with the same
> way, asking them to apply for new individual membership. No big deal.
>
> > And we have not yet agreed on the rule not to have dual membership of
> > official reps as individual members too so really we don't remove those
> for
> > now, also applicable to you as you are still an individual member and an
> > official rep.
> >
> > if  there is enough agreement to do that among the EC members and the
> NCSG
> > in the future, we can do so and put the rule down hopefully before the
> next
> > elections.  since you are exactly in that situation I believe you have to
> > recuse yourself and let others talk.
>
> Surely no recusal rule would apply to this kind of discussion - indeed
> a discussion where those affected were not allowed to argue their case
> would be missing something important.
>
> Actually I don't think a recusal would be warranted even in EC
> decision making in this situation, although that is certainly
> debatable (but then I'd definitely give the constituency in question
> time to appoint another representative to NCSG EC).
>
> But, back to our charter.
>
> Member removal procedures have to be approved by the membership
> (2.2.6). A rule that says an individual member would lose their
> membership if they become representative of an organization would
> clearly fall under that, so it after the EC creates the rule it'd have
> to be subjected to membership approval (what that'd mean is not
> specified, perhaps a special vote). Even then such a rule would in
> effect mean removing members simply because we don't want them to vote
> even when the charter says they could, and I think that'd be at least
> stretching the spirit even if not against the letter of the charter.
>
> On the other hand disenfranchising members is something the Charter
> does not provide for at all, except for inactive members. So the
> proposed rule to prevent individual members from voting if they are
> official representatives at the same time would seem to require
> charter change. It might be possible to work around that, however,
> e.g., by approving representative appointment only on condition that
> the individual membership is put on inactive list (enforced by threat
> of removal). Not exactly pretty though.
>
> All alternatives I can see are problematic one way or another.
>
> It would really be better to deal with this with a charter change
> (lots of other things there that should be changed, too). And I don't
> think this is all that urgent, it's never been a big problem in
> practice. Discussion is good, however, in any case.
>
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20180910/6cce202a/attachment.htm>