Hi Tapani,

Some comments in-line below:

> On Jun 3, 2020, at 1:51 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Amr,
> 
> Responses inline below.
> 
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 10:33:30AM +0000, Amr Elsadr ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
> 
>> My understanding is the same as yours for the scenarios you’ve laid
>> out below.
> 
> You agree with me just like that? Where's the fun in that? :-)

My (not so sincere) apology!! Will (not) try harder next time. :-)

> 
>> If I may deviate a little from the intent of this thread, I’d like
>> to add a few thoughts that have troubled me over the years:
> 
>> First, The GNSO Operating Procedures (See section 7.1.2.j) prohibit
>> a natural or legal person from being a voting member in more than
>> one GNSO “Group” (Group in the OPs refers to both Stakeholder Groups
>> and Constituencies). Since the creation of NPOC, the NCSG and its
>> two Constituencies has been consistently in conflict with this
>> requirement, as the NCSG Charter allows for full membership and
>> voting rights in up to 3 of its Constituencies. As things currently
>> stand, this isn’t procedurally correct, and imo should likely stop.
> 
> I seem to recall (possibly wrong) that the conflict has existed since
> the beginning, that is already at the time current NCSG Charter was
> approved, and NCSG's view was that if it's good enough for the Board,
> it's good enough for us.
> 
> Nonetheless the conflict exists as you say and would be technically
> easy fix in the charter. It would also remove one of those dual
> role situations (being in both NCUC and NPOC ECs at the same time).
> 
> But it gets even worse. I seem to recall someone arguing that having
> voting rights in both NCSG and even one of its constituencies violates
> that rule. Now *that* would be hard to fix.

Yup…, but tbh…, I think I’d prefer a change to the GNSO OPs on this, as opposed to the NCSG Charter. It makes perfect sense to be able to vote in both the NCSG and it’s Constituencies, and I don’t see an issue with being a voting member of more than one Constituency either, especially that our engagement with GNSO processes, including policy development is all done at the Stakeholder Group level anyway.

> 
>> Second, Although there is no rule prohibiting it, I find that there
>> is an inherent Conflict-Of-Interest in NCSG elected officers holding
>> similar positions in other SOs/ACs, such as ALAC or any of the
>> At-Large RALOs, GAC, SSAC, etc… I say this because although there is
>> no rule prohibiting it, the NCSG is consistently in conflict with
>> these ACs in terms of the policy recommendations we advocate for.
> 
> That is true.

Now you’re doing it…, agreeing with me!!

> 
>> At one point in time, a given individual holding office in the NCSG
>> and one of those ACs may be lobbied by the members he/she represents
>> to adopt and advocate conflicting policy positions. I find this to
>> be problematic. In the future, if a revision of the NCSG Charter is
>> conducted, I plan on raising the issue.
> 
> I think years back I at least planned on starting a Wiki page with all
> desirable or potential changes to the Charter... no idea if that ever
> happened or where it might be though.
> 
> Anyway, I'm sure the future Chair and EC of the NCSG will be happy to
> start revising the Charter as soon as they start their term. :-)

I’m not so sure about that, but suspect this was a bit of a tongue-in-cheek comment? :-)

> 
>> I also find it problematic for our members to alternate between
>> these positions - such as someone elected to serve on ALAC
>> transitioning to a GNSO Council role or vice versa. Speaking for
>> myself, I’d very much like our elected officers to be dedicated to
>> the interests that the NCSG advocates for, and not confuse or dilute
>> these with conflicting interests belonging to other parts of the
>> ICANN community. For the time being, this is decided by our members,
>> and how they vote. This is not a bad solution, but there’s no
>> guarantee that this being a COI (which it is imo) may be clear to
>> everyone.
> 
> Good point. Perhaps we could make a rule that such situations must be
> mentioned as conflicts of interest in candidate statements.

I’d welcome that. In the absence of such a rule, members who are aware of any COI, which isn’t strictly speaking prohibitive in being a candidate, could always just bring it up on-list.

> 
> Anyway, it reminds me of a case, long ago and unrelated to ICANN, when
> my father was in a meeting representing both himself and by proxy
> someone he knew disagreed with him on one particular point. And he
> voted differently with his own votes and with theirs. I don't know if
> he argued both sides with equal eloquence though. :-)

Has happened more than once for NCSG Councilors carrying proxy votes too. Traditionally, NCSG Councilors would vote on motions in whichever way they believe are in the best interests of NCSG's goals. On occasion, our Councilors have disagreed, and have voted both for and against a motion - once on behalf of the Councilor casting the vote, and once on behalf of the absent Councilor.

It happens.

Thanks.

Amr

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen