Hi Stephanie,
Yes, I agree we can ask that, but that doesn't solve the problem
completely: their situation could change later.
Can we oblige members to notify us when they join a member
organization later?
When an organization joins, can we ask it to check how many of
its members are already individual members?
If some such event results in more than X members of a member
organization as individual members without anybody noticing until
after the fact, can we remove some of them, and which one(s)?
Even if it is legal, can we do any of those without changing the
charter? I doubt it very much.
Tapani
On Sep 11 13:20, Stephanie Perrin ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
> I certainly agree with you there Raoul, we should not store personal data
> about participation in groups. Nothing prevents us from asking members to
> indicate how many groups they participate in who are also members of
> NCUC/NCSG.
>
> cheers Stephanie
> On 2018-09-11 11:22 AM, Raoul Plommer wrote:
> >
> > We should try to make this uncomplicated, whilst protecting
> > against undue influence of a particular organization. As to
> > whether privacy law prevents us from asking members who they
> > represent, I am consulting my legal contacts because I am sure
> > there is a legally compliant way to do this. I do not share
> > Raoul's view that this is "paranoid".
> >
> >
> > Stephanie, we can't really monitor who are members of which
> > organisation, outside the ICANN organisations and we can't store that
> > information because of the GDPR. Being scared of an organisational
> > takeover isn't a valid concern to store this kind of sensitive data,
> > that's all I meant about being paranoid. I'll be gladly admitting my
> > assumption false if your legal contacts tell you otherwise - I'm no
> > lawyer after all.
> >
> > -Raoul
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 at 17:43, Mueller, Milton L <[log in to unmask]
> > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> >
> > I disagree, Stephanie.
> >
> > Indeed, I think it’s completely absurd to have organizations that
> > have 45,000 members with the same voting power as an individual.
> > Many major noncommercial organizations will simply refuse to join
> > a constituency with that kind of a voting structure. We make a
> > pretty simple and flat voting structure, with large orgs, small
> > orgs and individuals. There are more individuals than
> > organizations, so it works out fairly balanced.
> >
> > I agree with Sam that voting is relatively unimportant except when
> > it comes to election of officers.
> >
> > It takes a lot of trouble and time to organize a vote, so the idea
> > that every administrative decision has to be voted on by the
> > membership is impractical.
> >
> > For those unaware of the history, NCUC started as an
> > organization-only constituency, and so did NPOC. Because of the
> > problems many people have getting authorization to “represent”
> > entire organizations, and in order to allow for broader
> > participation, we allowed individual membership. We adjusted
> > voting shares accordingly.
> >
> > Dr. Milton L Mueller
> >
> > Professor, School of Public Policy <http://spp.gatech.edu/>
> >
> > Georgia Institute of Technology
> >
> > Internet Governance Project
> >
> > http://internetgovernance.org/
> >
> > *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of *Stephanie
> > Perrin
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 11, 2018 8:24 AM
> > *To:* [log in to unmask]
> > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > *Subject:* Re: Procedures/Individual/organizations membership at NCSG
> >
> > I agree. I think it is entirely problematic to provide more votes
> > for larger organizations. I also share a concern about
> > differentiating between the participation of a member as a rep of
> > an organization, or as an individual. People should declare their
> > status and that is an end of it. If a member who represents an
> > organization has a strong personal view in a matter that is not
> > supported by their organization, surely they can explain their
> > viewpoint with a caveat.
> >
> > We should try to make this uncomplicated, whilst protecting
> > against undue influence of a particular organization. As to
> > whether privacy law prevents us from asking members who they
> > represent, I am consulting my legal contacts because I am sure
> > there is a legally compliant way to do this. I do not share
> > Raoul's view that this is "paranoid". I think it is essential to
> > have sound principles in place in our policies, to protect the
> > diversity of our membership, and the essential human rights values
> > of NCSG.
> >
> > Stephanie Perrin
> >
> > On 2018-09-10 16:14, farzaneh badii wrote:
> >
> >
> > Farzaneh
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 3:41 PM Sam Lanfranco <[log in to unmask]
> > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> >
> > Dear NCSG Colleagues,
> >
> > For private reasons I have been less involved in NCSG/NPOC
> > for 2018. I have kept abreast of issues and have long been
> > concerned with those surrounding organizational and
> > individual membership. I would like to comment here from
> > several slightly different perspectives.
> >
> > First, while we come from the non-commercial
> > constituencies, we address the concerns of the
> > non-commercial constituencies. We do not represent the
> > non-commercial constituency stakeholder group nor are we
> > in any formal way accountable to it. We simply do our best.
> >
> > Organizational members may represent the interests and
> > concerns of their organization, then again maybe not. Let
> > me be personal here. When asked to join NPOC and NCSG I
> > had recently served as Chair of the Board for Canadian
> > global health ngo CSIH. This was early in the ongoing
> > discussions around the Red Cross domain name issue and
> > concerns about health relate gTLDs.
> >
> > After a couple of years my NGO effectively untethered me,
> > leaving me to maintain a watching brief and reporting back
> > on issues that may concern them. The rest of the time I
> > could simple engage in addressing the concerns of the
> > non-commercial constituency. My ngo views its membership
> > as part of its “good works”. I simply do my best and only
> > report back when a relevant issue emerges. I do not speak
> > on behalf of my organizational member.
> >
> > It would be interesting to know how many organizational
> > members have a formal obligation to report back to their
> > organization, and how many pre-clear their positions on,
> > and participation in, ICANN policy matters. When that is
> > not the case, being also an individual member with the
> > associated extra votes raises troubling questions. That is
> > why, although I could, I have not applied for individual
> > membership.
> >
> > To cut this short, most of the serious ICANN work is done
> > among us on a consensus basis. What is important is the
> > dialogue, the knowledge sharing, and how hard working
> > members produce useful outputs. Voting is mainly for
> > selecting among ourselves those willing to put in even
> > more work in essentially administrative leadership
> > positions. Those we elect do not have extraordinary
> > powers, they have extra duties. Voting is not about
> > resolving policy or implementation issues.
> >
> > This leaves me to wonder why we do not simply have one
> > membership, and one vote, per member. Even the large
> > organization small organization distinction makes little
> > sense.
> >
> > Totally agree Sam. Why we are giving organizations more
> > voting weight than individual members while what they do more
> > or less is the same at NCSG is a mystry to me. Sometimes
> > organizations have one member or employee! Orgs are not giving
> > bigger dues (we don't charge dues) they are not contributing
> > more than individuals do in any other way.
> >
> > We, individually or representing the express positions of
> > our organizations, bring evidence, logic, and context to
> > bear when deliberating policy and implementation issues.
> > Hard fought battles still end in consensus. They do not
> > end because the vote was 51:49 and “ever vote counts”.
> > What is important is the integrity of the process and the
> > quality of the consensual outputs. The scale and scope of
> > membership and voting rights should reflect this. As they
> > stand they address things that are really a non-issue here.
> >
> > While I don't expect this to happen in the short run, I
> > would support simplifying participation to one membership
> > and one vote, and returning our energies to producing
> > ICANN deliverables.
> >
> > Sam L., NPOC
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------
> >
> > "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
> >
> > in an unjust state" -Confucius
> >
> > 邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Visiting Prof, Xi'an Jaiotong-Liverpool Univ, Suzhou, China
> >
> > Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus), Econ, York U., CANADA
> >
> > email:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> Skype: slanfranco
> >
> > blog:https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
> >
> > Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
> >
>
|
