You said:
"Some guy who runs a business and funds
religious right groups threw up a web site on some free blog area,
called it a "foundation" and claimed that it was a noncommercial org.
There was no evidence that anyone but him was involved, there was no
evidence that this organization existed. We told him he could join as an
individual, though, which he didn't bother to do. Rather obviously an
attempt to stack the deck. That's why we need some kind of review of
membership eligibility."
Please respond:
Does being a CEO of a business preclude an organization of which one is director from eligibility?
Exactly which "religious right groups" do you believe he "funds"?
How do you define "religious right groups" anyway? Does that include BYU?
Are "religious left groups" disapproved of as well?
I asked earlier how you distinguished the Church that you admitted this summer, for whom the Internet is a sacred shrine. I received no answer. As I asked then, How many members does it have? Is it involved in any other activities?
If Ralph "funds" varrious "religious right groups," would those all be disqualified as well? If not, why is a foundation to which he contributes funds for support of families on the Internet disqualified?
The director of this foundation could certainly have joined as an individual, but your response made it clear that your constituency was not unbiased. Rather than pay the $50 to join NCUC, I suppose he is waiting for the new structure and a new constituency.
If what you want is evidence of how many or who all is involved in the foundation, why didn't you say so? He could send you a list. Or do you want a list of activities the foundation has sponsored?
What makes something "rather obvious" to you is not set forth in the existing rules. As these questions illustrate, it is unclear, even from the above statement, what is the criteria after all.
Cheryl B. Preston
Edwin M. Thomas
Professor of Law
J. Reuben Clark Law School
Brigham Young University
424 JRCB
Provo, UT 84602
(801) 422-2312
[log in to unmask]
>>> Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> 10/13/08 3:02 PM >>>
Cheryl:
> Do you presume that all members of the new constituencies must also
join
> another organization, the NCSG or something else? The proposal
states:
> "Individuals and representatives of organizations join NCSG directly."
You join the NCSG first, directly, and form a constituency second. You
cannot form a NCSG constituency without being a member of NCSG. That is
clear I think from the proposal.
> Who decides on elibility?
The basic eligibility criteria for organizations are stated in the NCUC
charter; the criteria for individuals are stated in the application form
for individuals on the www.ncdnhc.org web site. Currently those criteria
are applied by the Executive Committee (not by me individually, as you
wrongly supposed). This has been a somewhat slow process even with only
5 EC members, and Kim Heitman's concerns about scalability as we add new
constituencies become even more pertinent here. I would suggest that the
Chair make a decision, communicate it to the EC and if X number of EC
members objects it can go to a vote, or an appeal to the whole
membership, whatever.
> Milton has turned down an organization
> application to NCUC because the .org domain name was purchased by a
> corporation and, thus -- supposedly -- commercial, even though the
Whoa. The Executive Committee turned it down, not me. To be more
precise, this application received NOT ONE vote from among the 6 people
involved. The reason is simple. Some guy who runs a business and funds
religious right groups threw up a web site on some free blog area,
called it a "foundation" and claimed that it was a noncommercial org.
There was no evidence that anyone but him was involved, there was no
evidence that this organization existed. We told him he could join as an
individual, though, which he didn't bother to do. Rather obviously an
attempt to stack the deck. That's why we need some kind of review of
membership eligibility.
> constituency itself, must be totally transparent, with clear stated
> rules, and then full discussion/explanation about the basis of the
> decision, and finally a method for appeal. The existing criteria is
not
> sufficient.
All of these things exist now. In any rational review and appeal
process, that application will fail. It was a fake, pure and simple.
> Were you thinking that all membership voting would be NCSG-wide, like
> the current NCUC is?
Yes.
> If so, then the existing NCUC control group would
> still control as NCUC as a constituency would claim more membership
and
> more "large" organizations than new constituencies.
NCUC dissolves as a constituency as this plan is implemented. There is
no "control group."
Here is the another way of stating what you seem to be complaining
about: if you want to influence NCSG policy positions and elect
officers, then you will have to be able to persuade more than 5 people.
Yep.
> Can you tell me the
> criteria for "large" and "small" organizations?
It is in the current NCUC charter.
> I assume for a new
> constituency to make any difference in the existing stakeholder
> representation, it would need to out-vote the NCUC constituency
> (whatever the new version is called).
There will be no NCUC constituency once this plan is enacted. But if you
mean, again, that a new constituency will have to persuade other
constituencies/ NCSG members to win elections, then yes, absolutely.
That is the way it should be. The mere act of forming a constituency
does not guarantee 5 people absolute power over a group of 50-100
people, nor should it.
> Thus, the way it reads to me, a constituency whose interest were
> Internet safety, for instance, could have 5 very legitimate members,
but
> unless all 5 are large organizations by the criteria, they will be
> out-voted every time -- in fact even if all 5 are large organizations
> they will be outvoted.
They will be outvoted only if they cannot convince other people to go
along with their views.
> So, with cumulative voting (if that what you mean), it would take
> perhaps 8 new constituencies of 5 members each (with approximately the
> same mix of large and small organizations and individuals as in the
> existing NCUC group), to outvote the NCUC group.
Again, there is no "NCUC group" in the new plan. Second, voting occurs
only for NCSG officers and GNSO Council members. Whoever expects to be
elected for those positions had better be supported by most of the NCSG
people. Third, constituencies, no matter how small, can put people on
Working Groups, which is where the policy "action" is in the new GNSO.
And they can file their position papers along with all the others.
> The proposal does say that each constituency does get a representative
> on the EC. Are you presuming that the EC of the NCSG would function
as
> has the EC of the current NCUC, where they basically make all the
> decisions without input from constituency membership by votes or
review?
The EC will have mostly administrative, not policy making powers.
Whether it is administration or policy, however, it is not feasible to
have every minor decision require a membership vote. We elect people to
make these decisions, and if we don't like the decisions they make we
throw them out of office next time. No one wants to be involved in every
single act of the NCSG, and anyone insane enough to attempt it will
discover that no one participates in those votes and that they will
spend all of their time running such votes rather than doing the real
work.
> the votes of the EC would be balanced, one for each
> constituency. Right?
Right.
> In which case, what is the point of the vote
> differential for size of organization other than to elect the EC
> representative within each constituency?
The vote differential applies when we have NCSG-wide elections for
Chair, and GNSO Council.
> Why couldn't each constituency
> decide how to allocate the votes within their own constituency, in
terms
> of individuals and organizations?
They can do that, when it comes to picking their own representative to
the EC
|
