[EC-NCSG] membership review procedures

[Tapani Tarvainen]

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 01:00:13PM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:

> If you haven?t already been following, please see the latest version on the operating procedures for membership review:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JcHBNGsD1tYDdkzGbAxt7T6CbRFj-_SzTdK_oN7Q2jI/edit?usp=sharing

> A couple additional issues have come up with the draft since we last
> spoke that I?d appreciate some feedback on.

> 1. How to handle people with dual membership as both an organization
> and also as an individual in NCSG? Several have expressed discomfort
> with this practice and the incentive it creates to game the system
> by giving some people considerably more voting rights by claiming
> dual memberships. One solution that has been proposed is allow those
> people to have membership in both categories, but only allow the
> person to vote in one of the membership categories (as an org or as
> an individual). This seems like a reasonable solution to me. What do
> others think?

I don't think we need to do anything about it in member removal
procedures, unless you want to propose removing such members.

Instead I'd suggest leaving this issue to the election procedures
discussion. Indeed it is included in the list of topics I sent
to the election-reform list earlier (last item under (3)):
https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/election-reform/2017-March/000001.html

If some of you aren't on the election-reform list yet, I'd suggest
subscribing: https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/election-reform

I'll try to move forward with that soon, most issues should
be resolved before next election, in effect before Johannesburg.

> 2. How to handle vacation / traveling time in the EC procedures for
> membership review? We need some flexibility because we don?t want
> deadlines happening when people are on vacation, but we also can?t
> have unlimited postponements due to someone claiming travel. Any
> ideas for how to handle deadlines and legitimate travel / vacation
> need for flexibility?

Provision for registering one's view in advance and long enough
deadlines so people have time to react before going on vacation.

Details need some thought though.

> Any other thoughts, comments, or recommendations on the draft are
> most welcome. Other than the above two issues, I?d say we are ready
> for membership feedback on the procedures.

I'll try to find time to read it through again thoroughly tomorrow,
but I don't recall any pressing issues either.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen