[For comment] Membership approval guidelines

Tue Sep 11 11:46:18 EEST 2018

First I am Mohamed Farahat from Egypt I am Egyptian lawyer.
I belive that dull voting should not be applicable
I see that for the membership issue for individuals the membership and voting issue not constitute any problem as his/her vot will equal 1 but in context of organization I see that if anyone apply for organization. Membership we could ask for official nomination from his /her organization to be uploaded with application. For the purpose of voting from the organization we could add question in application such as are you authorized to vote on behalf of your organization if answer is yes we ask the applicant to upload official authorization from hus/her organization. And this the only one has a right to vote regardless the number of persons from the the ngo. By this we will ensure that each ngo has one voice and one vote and avoiding many votes from the same organization.
Regards

Sent from my Huawei Mobile

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [For comment] Membership approval guidelines
From: farzaneh badii
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
CC:

I didn't say: it is absurd requesting to vote. It's absurd for me to remind people how things have been done in the past on this mailing list over and over and reminding them because they might not have paid attention and want to challenge it now. It's absurd.

Anyhow, if there are any challenges to EC decisions or concerns, you can send your objection.

(As to voting on operating procedures I don't personally agree.)

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 10:30 AM Farell FOLLY <farell at benin2point0.org<mailto:farell at benin2point0.org>> wrote:
I don’t think it is absurd requesting membership to vote on that, even If I am sure that the majority is against double voting and the result seems straightforward. But we lose nothing doing so and if in the future, somebody requests again a change, the new procedure should be voted against. Voting eliminate the impression that somebody or a small team thinks what is good for the rest and try to implement or enforce. In addition in this case, the bylaws also suggests membership approval

@__f_f__

Best Regards
____________________________________

(Ekue) Farell FOLLY
NCUC Rep. to the NCSG Policy Committee
linkedin.com/in/farellf<http://linkedin.com/in/farellf>

On 11 Sep 2018, at 14:21, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at GMAIL.COM<mailto:farzaneh.badii at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:

Tapani

This really is becoming scenario of absurd! Robin in September 2017 when you were the chair of NCSG shared these procedures on the mailing list. See below. You never said then that this should be voted by membership.  Robin explicitly said if there are no significant concenrs they should go forward as NCSG operating procedure in the coming weeks.  Despite having you answering to members inquiries not a single time you contested what Robin said. https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A1=ind1709&L=NCSG-DISCUSS#44 had you not agreed with her then?

I shared the same procedures for members again to weigh in and comment on June 2018. Gave the members three weeks to respond with all the previous year thread in place. No one objected. No one said approved should be interpreted that members vote.  And again you were not around. Document had only minor editorial changes. and then it was approved: https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1806&L=NCSG-DISCUSS&P=138383

I don't know what is happening. This has happened before where I had to again refer to the previously mentioned links and discussions. Would you like to undo things that were supposed to be done during your term? Go ahead. I take no pride in finalizing things that others should have done. Would you like these membership changes procedures be voted by the membership? Sure, lets see how much support you get here and you can also submit a letter to EC requesting it.

[https://plus.google.com/u/0/_/focus/photos/public/AIbEiAIAAABDCMy8oKru8Ke3MyILdmNhcmRfcGhvdG8qKDZmMDUyMjZlNTk2NmZmNzQyNDhlYjQzNjZlMTZkZTFhOTE0NzhjOWMwAViXGlyKmGDP-Sqzs7lJpPG0nbhE?sz=48]
Robin Gross robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org> via<https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en> listserv.syr.edu<http://listserv.syr.edu/>

[Attachments]Sep 2, 2017, 1:51 PM

[https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif]
[https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif]

to NCSG-DISCUSS
[https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif]

Hello,

Please find the attached procedures for handling changes in one's NCSG membership status, which is intended to formalize our EC’s operation on such matters.  If there are no significant concerns with these procedures, they should go forward as an NCSG operating procedure in the coming weeks.

Thanks,

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 8:34 AM Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info<mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>> wrote:
Dear Farzaneh,

Yes, that's what I mean. As our charter explicitly says member removal
procedures are subject to membership approval, that presumably means
something - that approving member removal procedures requires something
more than other procedures the EC can do by itself.

"2.2.6 Procedural rules

The Executive Committee shall create procedural rules for membership
and for existing members to maintain their good standing or for
removal of membership for cause. ***Any such procedure will be subject
to membership approval.***"

To me such language implies a vote by the membership or some other
extraordinary procedure.

So, how did EC obtain that approval from membership?

Or how do you interpret that sentence in the charter?

Tapani

On Sep 11 07:53, farzaneh badii (farzaneh.badii at gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>) wrote:
>
> Tapani,
>
> Sorry I am so surprised that I have to ask: you mean how the removal
> procedure got approved given that they are subject to membership approval?
> The procedures I sent the link to and are on our website?
>
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 3:47 AM Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info<mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Farzaneh,
> >
> > Given that our charter specifically requires them to be subject
> > to membership approval, how was that done?
> >
> > Tapani
> >
> > On Sep 11 03:20, farzaneh badii (farzaneh.badii at gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>) wrote:
> >
> > > Tapani
> > >
> > > Those removal procedures were approved a couple of months ago and now on
> > > the website:
> > >
> > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Operating+Procedures#OperatingProcedures-169034239

--
Tapani Tarvainen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20180911/70e4c3fa/attachment.htm>