[EC-NCSG] NPOC membership issues

[Alain Berranger]

Robin,

Let me check with Klaus (Chair, Membership Committee) first and get back to
the EC-NCSG soonest. We will include the old and the new pending
applications

On Saturday, June 23, 2012, Robin Gross wrote:

> Alain,
>
> If there are any pending membership applications that you believe need the
> EC's attention, please point to them, specifically.
>
> And please remember use this list for the discussion of any pending
> applications.
>
> Thank you,
> Robin
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *Alain Berranger <alain.berranger at gmail.com <javascript:_e({},
> 'cvml', 'alain.berranger at gmail.com');>>
> *Subject: **NPOC membership issues*
> *Date: *June 21, 2012 6:59:54 AM PDT
> *To: *Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'robin at ipjustice.org');>>
> *Cc: *"Klaus.Stoll" <klaus.stoll at chasquinet.org <javascript:_e({},
> 'cvml', 'klaus.stoll at chasquinet.org');>>, Lori Schulman <
> lori.schulman at ascd.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'lori.schulman at ascd.org');>>
>
> Dear Robin,
>
> The NCSG-EC needs to distinguish between "voting" and "participating".
>
> Section 6.2.6 of the GNSO Operating Rules and Procedures (ORPs) already
> limits "voting".  Section 6.2.6(d) specifically prohibits a legal or
> natural person from being a "voting" member of more than one Group. So NCSG
> simply has to apply those rules during the voting periods.
>
> However, there is no specific limitation to "participating" in the GNSO
> rules and the NCSG rules in particular clearly permit an entity to name a
> "representative" without limitation. Also,  GNSO's ORPs, Section 6.2.6(c),
> permits voting members of groups to appoint proxies to vote in their place.
>
> NCSG-EC cannot make decisions based on what we think are the intentions of
> a prospective member or its representative, but on reasonable and objective
> application of ICANN rules and procedures.
>
> If you check here:
> http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-16dec11-en.pdf ,
> you will see that Chapter 6 contains many of the applicable principles
> related to the current disagreement that Mr. Bikoff has with the way that
> the membership process is currently being applied by the NCSG-EC. Please
> refer to your exchanges with Jim for the details.
>
> Meanwhile, you probably have learned that Jim Bikoff has filed a complaint
> about this.
>
> In the spirit of San Jos? agreement between NPOC and NCUC, I ask you to
> bring this issue to the NCSG-EC soonest so we can review the situation and
> come to a revised decision in line with NPOC, NCSG and GNSO Rules and
> Procedures.
>
> On a more generic level re NPOC/NCSG membership, I think we have made good
> progress with the new NCSG form. I ask that you please make it an NCSG-EC
> priority in Prague to resolve the small procedurial points raised by Klaus
> in order to eliminate quickly the long list of NPOC's pending and new
> membership applications on hand. Delays have already been detrimental to
> the organic growth of NPOC and cannot be tolerated anymore.That done, we
> can resume new NPOC recruiting using the new form. But I do not wish to go
> back to NPOC Applicants to resubmit their application: Klaus is willing to
> carry out himself the workload of an additional step with the pending NPOC
> members to respond to the missing info on the new NCSG form, as if they had
> filled the new form back whenever.
>
> I think this a reasonable approach.
>
> I am looking forward to discuss and solve the specific and generic issues
> in Prague.
>
> Best and travel well, Alain
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>
> Hello Alain,
>
> The main problem with Mr. Bikoff and his firm is that they are already
> members of the Intellectual Property Constituency in the Commercial
> Stakeholder Group.
>
> Several times during the Costa Rica meeting, when Mr. Bikoff would take
> the floor to lobby on behalf of his client of the IOC, he would start his
> intervention by declaring he was a member of the IPC.  Also see his Statement
> of Interest <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/james+bikoff+soi>where
> he declares his a member of the IPC.
>
> So the problem is not only that he is a commercial law firm wanting to
> represent his client's interests under the "noncommercial" umbra, but
> mainly that he is trying to participate in BOTH the CSG and the NCSG to
> advance those client's interests.    Why is Mr. Bikoff so unwilling to
> accept the same rules as everyone else?   Rules that are intended to ensure
> fairness of representation.  We do not want to create incentives for gaming
> the system to obtain a larger share of votes in GNSO policy, as Mr. Bikoff
> proposes.
>
> Even if we wanted to bend the rules and let Mr. Bikoff participate in
> NCSG, there are still GNSO rules prohibiting cross-SG participation.   With
> all the pressure on ICANN to tighten the loopholes for conflicts of
> interests of its participants, it would be unwise for NCSG to propose to
> loosen those protections against conflicts of interests further.  The board
> and the GAC have spent considerable time in recent months working to get
> rid of loopholes that encourage conflicts of interests, and it would not
> look well for NCSG to move in the opposite direction with a more permissive
> attitude about conflicts of interests.
>
> Thanks
>
>
>

-- 
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
Member, Board of Directors, CECI,
http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca
Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org
NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
Skype: alain.berranger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20120623/2f9c847f/attachment-0001.html>