Hello there,
I agree with Farzaneh when she says that it is unfair to allow organizational reps who are individual members to vote twice. Yes, it needs to be fixed.
Best,
Jorge Restrepo
OISTE Foundation
-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of NCSG-DISCUSS automatic digest system
Sent: lundi 23 juillet 2018 06:00
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: NCSG-DISCUSS Digest - 21 Jul 2018 to 22 Jul 2018 (#2018-223)
There are 13 messages totaling 8191 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Organizational rep/individual members in elections (10)
2. Welcome to NCSG
3. [Outreach_com_2015] [Fellowship-Alumni] Internet Governance Weekly Brief :
Google fined by EC; Internet Giants on 'Data Transfer Project'; EU-Japan
data transfer cooperation; Trump on Russia inteference; AU on CERTs and
CIRTs; US Net neutrality; Child online protection
4. [Public Comments]: Draft Comment on Open Data Initiative Datasets and
Metadata
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 07:10:07 -0400
From: Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Organizational rep/individual members in elections
Thanks for your integrity, Collin.
Farzi, can we please have a list of those members who request to vote twice in the coming election, along with their rationale for doing so (if they provided one)?
I think it is quite extraordinary that we are even having this discussion. No one should be able to cast more than one vote in our upcoming election.
Best wishes, Ayden
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On 21 July 2018 1:41 PM, Collin Kurre <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hello Farzaneh,
>
> Thanks for raising this issue on the broader list.
>
> As you imply, one could imagine a situation where an individual member holds views that differ from their organization’s positions or strategies. Perhaps the more fundamental question is whether one person can be both an organizational representative and and individual member. Deciding on this question would preempt the need to determine whether an organizational opinion should invalidate the representing individual’s.
>
> Full disclosure: I was one of the organizational reps who was contacted and opted to forfeit my individual vote in the interest of fairness until this matter is decided by the group.
>
> Kind regards,
> Collin Kurre
>
> --
> Collin Kurre
> ARTICLE 19
>
>> On Jul 21, 2018, at 12:21 PM, farzaneh badii <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I have sent the message below to NCSG EC and I think we need to have a discussion about it and make an official decision on this issue. Please chime in:
>>
>> At the moment the organizational reps who are individual members of NCSG can participate in the elections as both organizational rep and individual members. Apparently, it has been discussed repeatedly in the past with no decision. Other than they said it is not against the charter.
>>
>> Not having remembered that it has been discussed but no decision made, I started contacting those who were listed as an individual member as well as organizational rep on the check-in list and asked them to choose whether they want to be individual members or represent their organization, since being both allowed them to vote twice which I think is not acceptable for the integrity of elections. Tapani corrected me and said the issue was discussed but never decided against https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/election-reform/2017-June/000021.html
>>
>> I personally think it is unfair to allow organizational reps who are individual members to vote twice. This is because organizational reps (usually but not always) have autonomy from their organization to vote as they see appropriate and do not have a mandate as such. If they are also individual members, it provides them with the opportunity to vote twice and I think we need to fix it.
>>
>> It might be too late to do this in this election but we need to discuss and make a decision. I have started explaining the rationale to those who are organizational reps as well as individual members and asked them to decide what they want to do for this election voluntarily until we make a decision.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Farzaneh
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 16:46:14 +0300
From: Tapani Tarvainen <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Organizational rep/individual members in elections
Dear all,
First full disclosure: I have been in this position in the past,
voting both as individual member and as the representative of
Electronic Frontier Finland (Effi). Not anymore though, after earlier
controversy about it I asked Effi to appoint another official
representative, so now I only have my individual vote in NCSG
elections.
That said, I now tend to agree that disallowing such double voting
would be good for NCSG. But it is not quite as simple and obvious as
it might seem at first.
Besides the usefulness of adding such a rule, it is important that it
would be done in proper order, following due process. In particular I
think it would be inappropriate to change rules in the middle of
ongoing election. So I think whatever is decided now should only apply
to subsequent elections. And in implementing it we should follow our
charter, and consider what kind of rules can and cannot be implemented
without changing the charter.
After all we're talking about disenfranchising or even removing
members against their will, which is just about as serious as anything
can be in an organization's rules.
As a general observation: there's nothing unusual about one person
having multiple votes or representing multiple interests in elections.
In limited companies votes go by shares and a voter can represent
multiple shareholders, or to pick a closer example, in GNSO council
councillors can have a proxy vote in addition to their own. And of
course in NCSG elections organizations already have more votes than
individuals. Nor is it unheard of for someone to vote differently
with different votes they're holding in the same election (indeed
at least once I've voted differently with my individual vote than
with Effi's vote in NCSG elections).
There are, however, often limits on how many votes one person can
have. In GNSO council a single councillor can only hold one proxy and
thus at most two votes, for example. And some type of limited
companies have restrictions too, like allowing one voter to hold at
most certain percentage of votes. So I don't see any problem in
principle for adopting such a rule for NCSG as well.
I am not certain if it could be done without changing the charter,
however. It might depend on how exactly it is done; depriving a member
of their vote is a rather drastic thing to do, but perhaps making it a
limitation on organizations' choice of their representatives would be
easier.
The more drastic option of disallowing one person even from being
both individual member and organizational representative would
also be possible, but considerably more complicated.
One easy case is when handling new member applications, i.e., when
either an organization in its application names a current member as
its representative, or when an organization's representative applies
for individual membership. In such situations NCSG EC can and should
use its discretion to judge if it looks like just an attempt to get
more votes - in particular if it looks like a de facto one-person
organization, such an application could well be rejected. No new
formal rules or charter changes would be needed, although EC could of
course adopt internal guidelines for such situations.
But when such a situation happens otherwise, when the two are already
members, whether predating rule change or when an organization wants
to change its representative to someone who's already an individual
member, it becomes more difficult. It would either have to be written
in member removal procedures that the individual membership would
thereby be lost or as a restriction on who the organization can
appoint as their representative. I'm not sure either could be done
without changing the charter, nor do I think it'd be a good idea to
begin with.
As a practical observation, the "gaming of system" scenario would
seem to be realistic just with such one-person organizations or
cases where only one person in an organization is actually
involved in NCSG - a large organization should have no trouble
in selecting a representative who isn't an individual NCSG member.
With that observation I conclude I can see no significant practical
harm in prohibiting an individual from voting in two roles, and it
would have definite advantages, so I'd be willing to support that.
(I note though that formulating such a rule would take some care,
but probably nothing really difficult.)
I would not, however, want to disallow an individual member from
even retaining their membership if they are an organization's
representative at the same time. In particular I would not want to
keep them from representing NCSG in working groups &c in their
individual capacity.
But whatever rule we choose to adopt, I would want it to be done
right, following due process and taking care of compatibility with our
charter, even changing it if need be. Asking ICANN legal team for an
opinion about that might be a good idea.
Sincerely,
Tapani Tarvainen
On Jul 21 12:41, Collin Kurre ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
> Hello Farzaneh,
>
> Thanks for raising this issue on the broader list.
>
> As you imply, one could imagine a situation where an individual member holds views that differ from their organization’s positions or strategies. Perhaps the more fundamental question is whether one person can be both an organizational representative and and individual member. Deciding on this question would preempt the need to determine whether an organizational opinion should invalidate the representing individual’s.
>
> Full disclosure: I was one of the organizational reps who was contacted and opted to forfeit my individual vote in the interest of fairness until this matter is decided by the group.
>
> Kind regards,
> Collin Kurre
>
> --
> Collin Kurre
> ARTICLE 19
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 21, 2018, at 12:21 PM, farzaneh badii <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I have sent the message below to NCSG EC and I think we need to have a discussion about it and make an official decision on this issue. Please chime in:
> >
> > At the moment the organizational reps who are individual members of NCSG can participate in the elections as both organizational rep and individual members. Apparently, it has been discussed repeatedly in the past with no decision. Other than they said it is not against the charter.
> >
> > Not having remembered that it has been discussed but no decision made, I started contacting those who were listed as an individual member as well as organizational rep on the check-in list and asked them to choose whether they want to be individual members or represent their organization, since being both allowed them to vote twice which I think is not acceptable for the integrity of elections. Tapani corrected me and said the issue was discussed but never decided against https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/election-reform/2017-June/000021.html <https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/election-reform/2017-June/000021.html>
> >
> > I personally think it is unfair to allow organizational reps who are individual members to vote twice. This is because organizational reps (usually but not always) have autonomy from their organization to vote as they see appropriate and do not have a mandate as such. If they are also individual members, it provides them with the opportunity to vote twice and I think we need to fix it.
> >
> > It might be too late to do this in this election but we need to discuss and make a decision. I have started explaining the rationale to those who are organizational reps as well as individual members and asked them to decide what they want to do for this election voluntarily until we make a decision.
> >
> >
> > Best
> >
> >
> > Farzaneh
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 17:55:27 +0400
From: Kris Seeburn <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Organizational rep/individual members in elections
I can follow the logic. Perhaps the way out is to have a committee setup within the bounds of NCSG, NCUC and NPOC to review closely and independently the charter and different issues on the table and it seems it is high time to really look into the different issues and propose charter changes and operational / structural changes that may ease up the work. Let’s be cognizant that the challenges exist and think it is high time to bring about the necessary reviews required. I think the different ECs should take it to draft a charter for the committee and let them do the necessary work and proposals within a set deadline.
My two cents.
> On Jul 22, 2018, at 17:46, Tapani Tarvainen <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> First full disclosure: I have been in this position in the past,
> voting both as individual member and as the representative of
> Electronic Frontier Finland (Effi). Not anymore though, after earlier
> controversy about it I asked Effi to appoint another official
> representative, so now I only have my individual vote in NCSG
> elections.
>
> That said, I now tend to agree that disallowing such double voting
> would be good for NCSG. But it is not quite as simple and obvious as
> it might seem at first.
>
> Besides the usefulness of adding such a rule, it is important that it
> would be done in proper order, following due process. In particular I
> think it would be inappropriate to change rules in the middle of
> ongoing election. So I think whatever is decided now should only apply
> to subsequent elections. And in implementing it we should follow our
> charter, and consider what kind of rules can and cannot be implemented
> without changing the charter.
>
> After all we're talking about disenfranchising or even removing
> members against their will, which is just about as serious as anything
> can be in an organization's rules.
>
> As a general observation: there's nothing unusual about one person
> having multiple votes or representing multiple interests in elections.
> In limited companies votes go by shares and a voter can represent
> multiple shareholders, or to pick a closer example, in GNSO council
> councillors can have a proxy vote in addition to their own. And of
> course in NCSG elections organizations already have more votes than
> individuals. Nor is it unheard of for someone to vote differently
> with different votes they're holding in the same election (indeed
> at least once I've voted differently with my individual vote than
> with Effi's vote in NCSG elections).
>
> There are, however, often limits on how many votes one person can
> have. In GNSO council a single councillor can only hold one proxy and
> thus at most two votes, for example. And some type of limited
> companies have restrictions too, like allowing one voter to hold at
> most certain percentage of votes. So I don't see any problem in
> principle for adopting such a rule for NCSG as well.
>
> I am not certain if it could be done without changing the charter,
> however. It might depend on how exactly it is done; depriving a member
> of their vote is a rather drastic thing to do, but perhaps making it a
> limitation on organizations' choice of their representatives would be
> easier.
>
> The more drastic option of disallowing one person even from being
> both individual member and organizational representative would
> also be possible, but considerably more complicated.
>
> One easy case is when handling new member applications, i.e., when
> either an organization in its application names a current member as
> its representative, or when an organization's representative applies
> for individual membership. In such situations NCSG EC can and should
> use its discretion to judge if it looks like just an attempt to get
> more votes - in particular if it looks like a de facto one-person
> organization, such an application could well be rejected. No new
> formal rules or charter changes would be needed, although EC could of
> course adopt internal guidelines for such situations.
>
> But when such a situation happens otherwise, when the two are already
> members, whether predating rule change or when an organization wants
> to change its representative to someone who's already an individual
> member, it becomes more difficult. It would either have to be written
> in member removal procedures that the individual membership would
> thereby be lost or as a restriction on who the organization can
> appoint as their representative. I'm not sure either could be done
> without changing the charter, nor do I think it'd be a good idea to
> begin with.
>
> As a practical observation, the "gaming of system" scenario would
> seem to be realistic just with such one-person organizations or
> cases where only one person in an organization is actually
> involved in NCSG - a large organization should have no trouble
> in selecting a representative who isn't an individual NCSG member.
>
> With that observation I conclude I can see no significant practical
> harm in prohibiting an individual from voting in two roles, and it
> would have definite advantages, so I'd be willing to support that.
> (I note though that formulating such a rule would take some care,
> but probably nothing really difficult.)
>
> I would not, however, want to disallow an individual member from
> even retaining their membership if they are an organization's
> representative at the same time. In particular I would not want to
> keep them from representing NCSG in working groups &c in their
> individual capacity.
>
> But whatever rule we choose to adopt, I would want it to be done
> right, following due process and taking care of compatibility with our
> charter, even changing it if need be. Asking ICANN legal team for an
> opinion about that might be a good idea.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Tapani Tarvainen
>
> On Jul 21 12:41, Collin Kurre ([log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>) wrote:
>
>> Hello Farzaneh,
>>
>> Thanks for raising this issue on the broader list.
>>
>> As you imply, one could imagine a situation where an individual member holds views that differ from their organization’s positions or strategies. Perhaps the more fundamental question is whether one person can be both an organizational representative and and individual member. Deciding on this question would preempt the need to determine whether an organizational opinion should invalidate the representing individual’s.
>>
>> Full disclosure: I was one of the organizational reps who was contacted and opted to forfeit my individual vote in the interest of fairness until this matter is decided by the group.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Collin Kurre
>>
>> --
>> Collin Kurre
>> ARTICLE 19
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 21, 2018, at 12:21 PM, farzaneh badii <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> I have sent the message below to NCSG EC and I think we need to have a discussion about it and make an official decision on this issue. Please chime in:
>>>
>>> At the moment the organizational reps who are individual members of NCSG can participate in the elections as both organizational rep and individual members. Apparently, it has been discussed repeatedly in the past with no decision. Other than they said it is not against the charter.
>>>
>>> Not having remembered that it has been discussed but no decision made, I started contacting those who were listed as an individual member as well as organizational rep on the check-in list and asked them to choose whether they want to be individual members or represent their organization, since being both allowed them to vote twice which I think is not acceptable for the integrity of elections. Tapani corrected me and said the issue was discussed but never decided against https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/election-reform/2017-June/000021.html <https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/election-reform/2017-June/000021.html> <https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/election-reform/2017-June/000021.html <https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/election-reform/2017-June/000021.html>>
>>>
>>> I personally think it is unfair to allow organizational reps who are individual members to vote twice. This is because organizational reps (usually but not always) have autonomy from their organization to vote as they see appropriate and do not have a mandate as such. If they are also individual members, it provides them with the opportunity to vote twice and I think we need to fix it.
>>>
>>> It might be too late to do this in this election but we need to discuss and make a decision. I have started explaining the rationale to those who are organizational reps as well as individual members and asked them to decide what they want to do for this election voluntarily until we make a decision.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>>
>>> Farzaneh
Kris Seeburn
[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/>
"Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 10:48:43 -0400
From: avri doria <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Organizational rep/individual members in elections
(observing)
I too was in this situation, for APC and as individual. I chose to vote
only as APC, though i did check in for both for the elections.
But I have understood those who said they had a vote they put in as a
rep, and a vote they put in as individual. I might have been able to
vote differently from APC at various times. This has been discussed
periodically over the years and for the most part we have relied on the
EC power to redress anything that looks abusive.
I was happiest when someone else became the voter for APC. One possible
measure is to ask that the alternate reps fom an org be the voters in
such a case. That way neither curtailing the voting rights of orgs or
individuals.
BTW on a related themes. I have decided, i think, that i should go
inactive as a voter for the duration of my term on the Board and thus at
this point have not checked in. APC probably did.
avri
On 22-Jul-18 09:46, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> First full disclosure: I have been in this position in the past,
> voting both as individual member and as the representative of
> Electronic Frontier Finland (Effi). Not anymore though, after earlier
> controversy about it I asked Effi to appoint another official
> representative, so now I only have my individual vote in NCSG
> elections.
>
> That said, I now tend to agree that disallowing such double voting
> would be good for NCSG. But it is not quite as simple and obvious as
> it might seem at first.
>
> Besides the usefulness of adding such a rule, it is important that it
> would be done in proper order, following due process. In particular I
> think it would be inappropriate to change rules in the middle of
> ongoing election. So I think whatever is decided now should only apply
> to subsequent elections. And in implementing it we should follow our
> charter, and consider what kind of rules can and cannot be implemented
> without changing the charter.
>
> After all we're talking about disenfranchising or even removing
> members against their will, which is just about as serious as anything
> can be in an organization's rules.
>
> As a general observation: there's nothing unusual about one person
> having multiple votes or representing multiple interests in elections.
> In limited companies votes go by shares and a voter can represent
> multiple shareholders, or to pick a closer example, in GNSO council
> councillors can have a proxy vote in addition to their own. And of
> course in NCSG elections organizations already have more votes than
> individuals. Nor is it unheard of for someone to vote differently
> with different votes they're holding in the same election (indeed
> at least once I've voted differently with my individual vote than
> with Effi's vote in NCSG elections).
>
> There are, however, often limits on how many votes one person can
> have. In GNSO council a single councillor can only hold one proxy and
> thus at most two votes, for example. And some type of limited
> companies have restrictions too, like allowing one voter to hold at
> most certain percentage of votes. So I don't see any problem in
> principle for adopting such a rule for NCSG as well.
>
> I am not certain if it could be done without changing the charter,
> however. It might depend on how exactly it is done; depriving a member
> of their vote is a rather drastic thing to do, but perhaps making it a
> limitation on organizations' choice of their representatives would be
> easier.
>
> The more drastic option of disallowing one person even from being
> both individual member and organizational representative would
> also be possible, but considerably more complicated.
>
> One easy case is when handling new member applications, i.e., when
> either an organization in its application names a current member as
> its representative, or when an organization's representative applies
> for individual membership. In such situations NCSG EC can and should
> use its discretion to judge if it looks like just an attempt to get
> more votes - in particular if it looks like a de facto one-person
> organization, such an application could well be rejected. No new
> formal rules or charter changes would be needed, although EC could of
> course adopt internal guidelines for such situations.
>
> But when such a situation happens otherwise, when the two are already
> members, whether predating rule change or when an organization wants
> to change its representative to someone who's already an individual
> member, it becomes more difficult. It would either have to be written
> in member removal procedures that the individual membership would
> thereby be lost or as a restriction on who the organization can
> appoint as their representative. I'm not sure either could be done
> without changing the charter, nor do I think it'd be a good idea to
> begin with.
>
> As a practical observation, the "gaming of system" scenario would
> seem to be realistic just with such one-person organizations or
> cases where only one person in an organization is actually
> involved in NCSG - a large organization should have no trouble
> in selecting a representative who isn't an individual NCSG member.
>
> With that observation I conclude I can see no significant practical
> harm in prohibiting an individual from voting in two roles, and it
> would have definite advantages, so I'd be willing to support that.
> (I note though that formulating such a rule would take some care,
> but probably nothing really difficult.)
>
> I would not, however, want to disallow an individual member from
> even retaining their membership if they are an organization's
> representative at the same time. In particular I would not want to
> keep them from representing NCSG in working groups &c in their
> individual capacity.
>
> But whatever rule we choose to adopt, I would want it to be done
> right, following due process and taking care of compatibility with our
> charter, even changing it if need be. Asking ICANN legal team for an
> opinion about that might be a good idea.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Tapani Tarvainen
>
> On Jul 21 12:41, Collin Kurre ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
>
>> Hello Farzaneh,
>>
>> Thanks for raising this issue on the broader list.
>>
>> As you imply, one could imagine a situation where an individual member holds views that differ from their organization’s positions or strategies. Perhaps the more fundamental question is whether one person can be both an organizational representative and and individual member. Deciding on this question would preempt the need to determine whether an organizational opinion should invalidate the representing individual’s.
>>
>> Full disclosure: I was one of the organizational reps who was contacted and opted to forfeit my individual vote in the interest of fairness until this matter is decided by the group.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Collin Kurre
>>
>> --
>> Collin Kurre
>> ARTICLE 19
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 21, 2018, at 12:21 PM, farzaneh badii <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> I have sent the message below to NCSG EC and I think we need to have a discussion about it and make an official decision on this issue. Please chime in:
>>>
>>> At the moment the organizational reps who are individual members of NCSG can participate in the elections as both organizational rep and individual members. Apparently, it has been discussed repeatedly in the past with no decision. Other than they said it is not against the charter.
>>>
>>> Not having remembered that it has been discussed but no decision made, I started contacting those who were listed as an individual member as well as organizational rep on the check-in list and asked them to choose whether they want to be individual members or represent their organization, since being both allowed them to vote twice which I think is not acceptable for the integrity of elections. Tapani corrected me and said the issue was discussed but never decided against https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/election-reform/2017-June/000021.html <https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/election-reform/2017-June/000021.html>
>>>
>>> I personally think it is unfair to allow organizational reps who are individual members to vote twice. This is because organizational reps (usually but not always) have autonomy from their organization to vote as they see appropriate and do not have a mandate as such. If they are also individual members, it provides them with the opportunity to vote twice and I think we need to fix it.
>>>
>>> It might be too late to do this in this election but we need to discuss and make a decision. I have started explaining the rationale to those who are organizational reps as well as individual members and asked them to decide what they want to do for this election voluntarily until we make a decision.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>>
>>> Farzaneh
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 12:01:58 -0400
From: Paul Rosenzweig <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Organizational rep/individual members in elections
I really don't have a dog in this fight, since I am not even a voting individual, but only the alternate for an organization. But a few thoughts:
Would you prohibit the organizational rep from being an individual member as well, or merely disenfranchise him/her?
Is it unreasonable to think that an individual might have a different opinion in his/her personal capacity from that of the organization which s/he represents, such that the two votes would not be double counting?
If we are following this logic to its conclusion, why should the individuals of any organizational member have an individual vote at all? After all, our organizations are admitted on the basis of thinking that they represent their membership and are given weighted votes based on their size already? Why should even the alternates (or indeed any other members) have a supplemental vote when they are part of the organization.
By way of example -- EFFi probably has many supporters, board members, and staff (I pick them only b/c Tapani has named them -- not for any other reason). If EFFi has a vote, why should it be allowed to "game the system" by having its staff/Board/funders also vote in the same way? If we don't limit it, what is to stop a large organization from attempting a "take over."?
I really don't have answers to this -- but the question is, I think, much more complex than we have made it out to be.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
[log in to unmask]
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
www.redbranchconsulting.com
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684
-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Tapani Tarvainen
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2018 9:46 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Organizational rep/individual members in elections
Dear all,
First full disclosure: I have been in this position in the past, voting both as individual member and as the representative of Electronic Frontier Finland (Effi). Not anymore though, after earlier controversy about it I asked Effi to appoint another official representative, so now I only have my individual vote in NCSG elections.
That said, I now tend to agree that disallowing such double voting would be good for NCSG. But it is not quite as simple and obvious as it might seem at first.
Besides the usefulness of adding such a rule, it is important that it would be done in proper order, following due process. In particular I think it would be inappropriate to change rules in the middle of ongoing election. So I think whatever is decided now should only apply to subsequent elections. And in implementing it we should follow our charter, and consider what kind of rules can and cannot be implemented without changing the charter.
After all we're talking about disenfranchising or even removing members against their will, which is just about as serious as anything can be in an organization's rules.
As a general observation: there's nothing unusual about one person having multiple votes or representing multiple interests in elections.
In limited companies votes go by shares and a voter can represent multiple shareholders, or to pick a closer example, in GNSO council councillors can have a proxy vote in addition to their own. And of course in NCSG elections organizations already have more votes than individuals. Nor is it unheard of for someone to vote differently with different votes they're holding in the same election (indeed at least once I've voted differently with my individual vote than with Effi's vote in NCSG elections).
There are, however, often limits on how many votes one person can have. In GNSO council a single councillor can only hold one proxy and thus at most two votes, for example. And some type of limited companies have restrictions too, like allowing one voter to hold at most certain percentage of votes. So I don't see any problem in principle for adopting such a rule for NCSG as well.
I am not certain if it could be done without changing the charter, however. It might depend on how exactly it is done; depriving a member of their vote is a rather drastic thing to do, but perhaps making it a limitation on organizations' choice of their representatives would be easier.
The more drastic option of disallowing one person even from being both individual member and organizational representative would also be possible, but considerably more complicated.
One easy case is when handling new member applications, i.e., when either an organization in its application names a current member as its representative, or when an organization's representative applies for individual membership. In such situations NCSG EC can and should use its discretion to judge if it looks like just an attempt to get more votes - in particular if it looks like a de facto one-person organization, such an application could well be rejected. No new formal rules or charter changes would be needed, although EC could of course adopt internal guidelines for such situations.
But when such a situation happens otherwise, when the two are already members, whether predating rule change or when an organization wants to change its representative to someone who's already an individual member, it becomes more difficult. It would either have to be written in member removal procedures that the individual membership would thereby be lost or as a restriction on who the organization can appoint as their representative. I'm not sure either could be done without changing the charter, nor do I think it'd be a good idea to begin with.
As a practical observation, the "gaming of system" scenario would seem to be realistic just with such one-person organizations or cases where only one person in an organization is actually involved in NCSG - a large organization should have no trouble in selecting a representative who isn't an individual NCSG member.
With that observation I conclude I can see no significant practical harm in prohibiting an individual from voting in two roles, and it would have definite advantages, so I'd be willing to support that.
(I note though that formulating such a rule would take some care, but probably nothing really difficult.)
I would not, however, want to disallow an individual member from even retaining their membership if they are an organization's representative at the same time. In particular I would not want to keep them from representing NCSG in working groups &c in their individual capacity.
But whatever rule we choose to adopt, I would want it to be done right, following due process and taking care of compatibility with our charter, even changing it if need be. Asking ICANN legal team for an opinion about that might be a good idea.
Sincerely,
Tapani Tarvainen
On Jul 21 12:41, Collin Kurre ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
> Hello Farzaneh,
>
> Thanks for raising this issue on the broader list.
>
> As you imply, one could imagine a situation where an individual member holds views that differ from their organization’s positions or strategies. Perhaps the more fundamental question is whether one person can be both an organizational representative and and individual member. Deciding on this question would preempt the need to determine whether an organizational opinion should invalidate the representing individual’s.
>
> Full disclosure: I was one of the organizational reps who was contacted and opted to forfeit my individual vote in the interest of fairness until this matter is decided by the group.
>
> Kind regards,
> Collin Kurre
>
> --
> Collin Kurre
> ARTICLE 19
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 21, 2018, at 12:21 PM, farzaneh badii <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I have sent the message below to NCSG EC and I think we need to have a discussion about it and make an official decision on this issue. Please chime in:
> >
> > At the moment the organizational reps who are individual members of NCSG can participate in the elections as both organizational rep and individual members. Apparently, it has been discussed repeatedly in the past with no decision. Other than they said it is not against the charter.
> >
> > Not having remembered that it has been discussed but no decision
> > made, I started contacting those who were listed as an individual
> > member as well as organizational rep on the check-in list and asked
> > them to choose whether they want to be individual members or
> > represent their organization, since being both allowed them to vote
> > twice which I think is not acceptable for the integrity of
> > elections. Tapani corrected me and said the issue was discussed but
> > never decided against
> > https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/election-reform/2017-June/000021.htm
> > l
> > <https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/election-reform/2017-June/000021.ht
> > ml>
> >
> > I personally think it is unfair to allow organizational reps who are individual members to vote twice. This is because organizational reps (usually but not always) have autonomy from their organization to vote as they see appropriate and do not have a mandate as such. If they are also individual members, it provides them with the opportunity to vote twice and I think we need to fix it.
> >
> > It might be too late to do this in this election but we need to discuss and make a decision. I have started explaining the rationale to those who are organizational reps as well as individual members and asked them to decide what they want to do for this election voluntarily until we make a decision.
> >
> >
> > Best
> >
> >
> > Farzaneh
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 18:02:57 +0200
From: Farell FOLLY <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Welcome to NCSG
Dear newcomers, Chers nouveaux arrivants
I welcome you all to our community and please you to feel free to contact any of the existing members for any question and orientation. Je vous souhaite à tous la bienvenue et n’hésitez à poser des questions si vous vous sentez un peu perdus au début, c’est normal et ça peut durer plusieurs mois.
@__f_f__
Best Regards / Salutations.
____________________________________
Farell FOLLY
NCUC Rep. to the NCSG Policy Committee
linkedin.com/in/farellf
> On 20 Jul 2018, at 11:05, Remmy Nweke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Welcome to all of you.
> Regards
> Remmy
>
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 4:41 pm farzaneh badii, <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> The individuals and the organization below are now NCSG members.
>
> Welcome to NCSG, I have attached an introductory document to NCSG to this email to help with your participation and do not hesitate to reach out should you have questions.
>
>
>
> INDIVIDUALS
> Paulo Tavares, Brazil
> Juan Alejo Peirano, United Kingdom
> Catalina Gonzalez, Argentina
> Beauregard-Lacroix, United States
> Austin Ruckstuhl, Belgium
> Amr Elsadr, Egypt
>
> ORGANIZATION
> Campaign for Personal Prescription Importation, Tracy Cooley, United States
>
>
>
> Farzaneh
> NCSG Chair
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 20:22:58 +0100
From: Akinremi Peter Taiwo <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [Outreach_com_2015] [Fellowship-Alumni] Internet Governance Weekly Brief : Google fined by EC; Internet Giants on 'Data Transfer Project'; EU-Japan data transfer cooperation; Trump on Russia inteference; AU on CERTs and CIRTs; US Net neutrality; Child online protection
Hi Makane,
How can someone benefits from this training?
Regards
Peter.
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018, 8:01 PM Faye Makane <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Beran,
>
> Please see below:
> https://au.int/en/cybersecurityworkshop.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Makane
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Beran Dondeh <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> Mamadou please forward the link on AU and CERTs.
>>
>> Thank you for these very informative and helpful forwards. Please keep
>> them coming .
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Beran
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On 21 Jul 2018, at 15:43, Mamadou LO <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> *SUMMARY *
>> This week, "European Commission fined Google €4.34 billion for illegal
>> practices regarding Android mobile devices to strengthen dominance of
>> Google's search engine".
>> "The EU and Japan have agreed to recognise each other's data protection
>> regime as "equivalent", meaning, for EU-based businesses, the transfer of
>> personal data to Japan will automatically be said to comply with the
>> requirements of EU law".
>> Microsoft, Google, Facebook and Twitter have set aside their differences
>> and joined forces to create the Data Transfer Project, an open-source
>> framework designed for "helping users securely and seamlessly move their
>> data between service providers."
>> On surveillance, "Donald Trump has for the first time said he holds
>> Russian leader Vladimir Putin personally responsible for Moscow’s alleged
>> efforts to interfere in the 2016 US election".
>> The African Union proposes the strengthening of preventive measures
>> against cybercriminal attacks, at both technical and legal level. So, the
>> African Union Commission is organizing a workshop on cyber strategies,
>> cyber legislation and the establishment of CERTs and CIRTs from 23 to 27
>> July 2018 at its headquarters in Addis Ababa.
>> On Net neutrality, "Congressman Mike Coffman (R-CO) introduced the 21st
>> Century Internet Act to the House of Representatives. This bill seeks to
>> codify the principles of net neutrality into law, taking the decision out
>> of the hands of the FCC".
>> On child online protection, Facebook and Instagram are cracking down on
>> underage children who hold accounts with the social networks. Moderators
>> working for the online platforms now have the ability to proactively lock
>> any accounts they suspect to be owned by someone under the age of 13.
>> Below, find informations and sources on these subjects and events
>>
>> *GOOGLE FINED BY EUROPEAN COMMISSION*
>>
>>
>> EU fines Google $5.1 Billion Android Antitrust case
>>
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/technology/google-eu-android-fine.html
>>
>> *RUSSIA INTERFERENCE IN US 2016 ELECTION*
>>
>>
>> Trump says he holds Putin personnaly responsible for Russia's 2016
>> election meddling
>>
>>
>> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-putin-russia-us-election-2016-meddling-investigation-mueller-intelligence-latest-a8453856.html
>>
>> *EU-JAPAN DATA PROTECTION COOPERATION*
>>
>>
>> EU and Japan agree deal on data protection
>>
>>
>> https://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2018/july/eu-japan-agree-data-protection/
>>
>> *FRANCE-SINGAPORE CYBER COOPERATION*
>>
>>
>> France-Singapore Road map for deepening cooperation in digital
>> innovation, internet governance and cybersecurity
>>
>>
>> https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/country-files/singapore/events-2630/article/france-singapore-road-map-for-deepening-cooperation-in-digital-innovation
>>
>> *NET NEUTRALITY*
>>
>>
>> Republican congressman introduces bill to make net neutrality law
>>
>>
>> https://www.engadget.com/2018/07/17/mike-coffman-net-neutrality-21st-century-internet-act/
>>
>> *INTERNET GIANTS TO JOIN FORCES FOR DATA PROTECTION AND PORTABILITY*
>>
>>
>> Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter join forces for data protection
>> and portability
>>
>>
>> https://www.techradar.com/news/facebook-google-microsoft-and-twitter-join-forces-for-data-protection-and-portability-project
>>
>> *CHILD ONLINE PROTECTION*
>>
>>
>> Facebook and Instagram pledge to lock younger users' accounts
>>
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5974347/Facebook-Instagram-pledge-lock-younger-users-accounts.html
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fellowship-Alumni mailing list
>> [log in to unmask]
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/fellowship-alumni
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Outreach_com_2015 mailing list
>> [log in to unmask]
>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/outreach_com_2015_intgovforum.org
>>
>>
> --
> Vous recevez ce message, car vous êtes abonné au groupe Google Groupes
> "acsis_info".
> Pour vous désabonner de ce groupe et ne plus recevoir d'e-mails le
> concernant, envoyez un e-mail à l'adresse
> [log in to unmask]
> Pour envoyer un message à ce groupe, envoyez un e-mail à l'adresse
> [log in to unmask]
> Cette discussion peut être lue sur le Web à l'adresse
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/acsis_info/CABu6qVKHRGkv8Yf2fQZOYtZ_k84QGUv%2Ba7A-%3DgV-Rv4jK8Zi%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/acsis_info/CABu6qVKHRGkv8Yf2fQZOYtZ_k84QGUv%2Ba7A-%3DgV-Rv4jK8Zi%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
> Pour obtenir davantage d'options, consultez la page
> https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 00:54:09 +0200
From: Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix
<[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [Public Comments]: Draft Comment on Open Data Initiative Datasets and Metadata
Hi Elsa, hi all,
Thank you and the team for taking the time for drafting the comment. I find
that the points raised in the comment are indeed relevant! From a broader
perspective, it is good that ICANN has plans to publish more data - I can
see a lot of potential for qualitative and quantitative research here in
various fields of social sciences!
Best,
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 8:45 PM, Michael Karanicolas <[log in to unmask]
> wrote:
> Sure - I went back and found a previous version, and added comments
> noting where the changes had been made. Please forgive the rookie
> mistake :)
>
> I understand the concerns about privacy, and wouldn't suggest removing
> them entirely, but I'm also not sure we should frontload them, or make
> them a central focus of the submission (especially if it seems like
> they're already charting a good course in this area - and taking the
> necessary precautions). Having heard claims of "privacy" being thrown
> around with regard to everything from board deliberations to
> commercial information during the WS2 discussions, the last thing we
> want is for them to start taking an expansive view of that interest,
> or to get gun-shy about developing new datasets and taking the program
> forward as a result of these concerns. We want them to take
> appropriate precautions and redact material where necessary - I don't
> think we want privacy challenges to be used as an excuse to curtail
> the ODI.
>
> Right now there's still two references to the need to take care with
> regard to personal information - which in my opinion expresses
> the point sufficiently.
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 7:09 PM, Elsa S <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > I did not see the edits you made, have you suggested them? Or simply
> edited
> > them?
> >
> > I do tend to agree that sometimes privacy could impede on the extent of
> > transparency, however as NCSG fights for both, it would be important to
> flag
> > that some personal data should be kept private. Before we went through
> the
> > spreadsheet and the links thoroughly, some data elements were on the
> surface
> > related to fellowship data, nexgen data, data about councilors at the
> gnso,
> > etc.. and we were unsure how deep those datasets were until we checked
> some
> > of the links and figured out - tentatively - how much data would be
> > published.
> >
> > Point being, even though we checked the links and kind of had a sense
> that
> > privacy in certain important cases is respected, we can never be sure,
> and
> > we cannot take part in leaking such elements given our constant fight for
> > privacy as NCSG. Which is why we mentioned it several times!
> >
> > Your point is taken Michael, but could you kindly go back to the document
> > and make sure that your changes be tracked as suggested? This way members
> > could also comment on those suggestions :)
> >
> > Thanks for the efforts,
> >
> > Elsa
> > —
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 3:47 AM Michael Karanicolas <
> [log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Thanks so much for taking the initiative in drafting this, and for
> >> your thorough engagement with the ODI. I apologize I haven't been more
> >> engaged on this issue recently, the last month or so has been a bit
> >> hectic.
> >>
> >> I wanted to push back a bit on the suggested inclusion of all these
> >> references to privacy though, as I think that in this context they are
> >> unnecessary and counterproductive. In particular, the comment leads
> >> with a statement that: "accuracy and transparency must always be
> >> balanced against the fundamental right to privacy". That statement is
> >> factually incorrect, since many (most?) of the listed datasets don't
> >> have any substantial privacy interest in them, so there's no real
> >> "balancing" to do in these cases. Moreover, I think we want to avoid
> >> endorsing the kind of expansive understandings of privacy that could
> >> have it applied to, say, board deliberations, to raise restrictions on
> >> that kind of information to the level of a human right. This sort of
> >> thinking is more common than you might think, and we should be careful
> >> not to appear to be supporting it, even though we are firm believers
> >> in the right to privacy as it applies to personal information.
> >>
> >> Right now, privacy is mentioned 3 times. I edited out the first two,
> >> and replaced the last one with a reference to personal information.
> >>
> >> Best wishes, and thanks again for taking this forward.
> >>
> >> Michael
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 11:17 AM, Juan Alejo Peirano
> >> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >> > Hi Elsa,
> >> >
> >> > Thank you for your message. Please find some comments below in between
> >> > lines.
> >> >
> >> > El El vie, 20 de jul. de 2018 a las 01:23, Elsa S <
> [log in to unmask]>
> >> > escribió:
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi Juan,
> >> >>
> >> >> Thank you very much for your comments! Any comment is very welcome,
> >> >> especially a constructive one like this one.
> >> >>
> >> >> We do agree that the data labeled “restricted” should not be
> disclosed,
> >> >> however, we thought that it would be best that ICANN disclose to the
> >> >> public
> >> >> the reason why they are restricted. We understand why it’s best that
> >> >> they be
> >> >> kept restricted, however it is a responsible act from ICANN to
> include
> >> >> a
> >> >> small description explaining the
> >> >>
> >> >> restriction.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Totally agree with the fact that ICANN should make the wording used on
> >> > the
> >> > spreadsheet as understandable and clear as possible.
> >> >
> >> > My comment aimed towards that it is mentioned on our document that the
> >> > restriction and the clarification of the term should be addressed as
> an
> >> > error of the provided spreadsheet. From my point of view, it is not an
> >> > error
> >> > given the intrinsic characteristics of the described data.As I
> mentioned
> >> > on
> >> > the document, I would prefer to address this issue in a different
> >> > section of
> >> > our statement. But again, I’m in favor of asking for clarification of
> >> > any
> >> > unclear term used on the spreadsheet.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Does that answer your point?
> >> >>
> >> >> Best,
> >> >>
> >> >> Elsa
> >> >> —
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Thank you again for your response and time spent on this matter!
> >> >
> >> > Juan
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 3:32 PM Juan Alejo Peirano
> >> >> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Hi Ayden,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Thank you for your response! Being this a large group of people with
> >> >>> diverse interests, drafting a document with the mentioned
> >> >>> time-constrains is
> >> >>> quite a challenge. I don't want my comments to be too thorough on
> the
> >> >>> technical side - some times it doesn't add anything to the substance
> >> >>> and
> >> >>> it's just a pain in the a**. That's why I wanted to make sure that
> I'm
> >> >>> in
> >> >>> line with the dynamics of the group.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> +1 to the following:
> >> >>> - Hi Elsa et al, thanks for starting this effort and drafting this
> >> >>> comment
> >> >>>
> >> >>> All the best!
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Juan
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> El jue., 19 jul. 2018 a las 20:18, Ayden Férdeline
> >> >>> (<[log in to unmask]>) escribió:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Hi Juan, thanks for flagging this and welcome to the NCSG! Your
> >> >>>> explanation sounds very sensible. (And it is perfectly acceptable
> to
> >> >>>> make
> >> >>>> comments about the substance of our statements that are in the
> >> >>>> process of
> >> >>>> being drafted on this mailing list.)
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Hi Elsa et al, thanks for starting this effort and drafting this
> >> >>>> comment. I have made a few suggested edits to the document now.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Best wishes, Ayden
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> >> >>>> On 19 July 2018 8:56 PM, Juan Alejo Peirano
> >> >>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Hi all,
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> First of all, thank you for having me in this great group. Hope
> that
> >> >>>> my
> >> >>>> comments would be of value, to address the interests of the group
> in
> >> >>>> the
> >> >>>> best way possible.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> A quick question first, do we need to comment on the shared
> document
> >> >>>> or
> >> >>>> by email?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Giving that this is my first comment, I would prefer to do it by
> >> >>>> email,
> >> >>>> sorry for that :)
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> My comment is regarding the point 3 of the doc section "Errors and
> >> >>>> omissions".
> >> >>>> The restricted files appear to be related with configuration files
> >> >>>> (particularly TLDs zone files and root zone servers files) and for
> >> >>>> security
> >> >>>> reason, it is sensible for them not to be available as Open Data.
> >> >>>> Configurations zone files could be use for cyberattacks, especially
> >> >>>> if the
> >> >>>> attacker knows how the DNS zone is defined on the server.
> >> >>>> I'm totally in favor of asking for clarification why the term
> >> >>>> restricted
> >> >>>> is used on the spreadsheet, but I would not push for access of such
> >> >>>> files,
> >> >>>> it would be a risk for the integrity of the DNS zones. Also, I
> would
> >> >>>> not
> >> >>>> classify that as an "error" on the document, from a technical
> >> >>>> perspective
> >> >>>> the classification "restricted" makes sense.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Please let me know if I'm off topic at any point of this comment.
> >> >>>> Being
> >> >>>> this my first, I could be totally wrong and out of scope from the
> >> >>>> interests
> >> >>>> of the group.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Thank you!
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Juan Alejo Peirano
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> El jue., 19 jul. 2018 a las 18:58, Elsa S (<[log in to unmask]>)
> >> >>>> escribió:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Hi all,
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> It is our pleasure to share with you the draft public comment on
> the
> >> >>>>> Open Data Initiative (ODI) which Yazid, Antonella, Shahul,
> Akinremi
> >> >>>>> and
> >> >>>>> myself worked on over the past week, with the help of Rafik!
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Comments on the ODI Datasets and Metadata opened in June this
> year,
> >> >>>>> where ICANN asked the community for advice as to which datasets in
> >> >>>>> their
> >> >>>>> shared inventory should be published first. The publishing
> >> >>>>> chronology would
> >> >>>>> be based on the comments ICANN receives, and the aim of sharing
> the
> >> >>>>> data
> >> >>>>> according to what the CEO's Blog post mentioned, would be to
> >> >>>>> increase
> >> >>>>> evidence-based policy development.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> The dataset inventory includes 232 elements on all sorts of
> topics,
> >> >>>>> SGs
> >> >>>>> and Cs. We went through them as carefully as we could on this
> >> >>>>> spreadsheet
> >> >>>>> which you could also take a look at, and our conclusions were
> >> >>>>> drafted in
> >> >>>>> this google doc. At this point, we need your input keeping in mind
> >> >>>>> NCSG's
> >> >>>>> priorities. We thank everyone who contributed, and any member who
> >> >>>>> will
> >> >>>>> contribute to make this comment more fit to submit. Note that the
> >> >>>>> closing
> >> >>>>> date is in a week's time, so the sooner the contributions, the
> >> >>>>> better for us
> >> >>>>> all! :)
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Our suggestion for most efficiency would be for you to read the
> >> >>>>> google
> >> >>>>> doc first, check the spreadsheet, then add any comments or
> >> >>>>> suggestions to
> >> >>>>> the comment accordingly.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Please do let us know if there is anything that needs further
> >> >>>>> elaboration, and happy reading!
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Best,
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Elsa
> >> >>>>> --
> >> >>>>> --
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Elsa Saade
> >> >>>>> Consultant
> >> >>>>> Gulf Centre for Human Rights
> >> >>>>> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> --
> >> >>>> Juan Alejo Peirano
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> --
> >> >>> Juan Alejo Peirano
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> --
> >> >>
> >> >> Elsa Saade
> >> >> Consultant
> >> >> Gulf Centre for Human Rights
> >> >> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Juan Alejo Peirano
> >
> > --
> > --
> >
> > Elsa Saade
> > Consultant
> > Gulf Centre for Human Rights
> > Twitter: @Elsa_Saade
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 01:17:40 +0200
From: Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix
<[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Organizational rep/individual members in elections
Hi all,
In absolute terms an individual can act as a perfect agent for an
organisation (perfect in the sense that no individual views "percolate"
through the behaviours of the agent...) and still be an individual member
in a different capacity.
In real life that never happens. In addition, I do also believe that many
here, because of the character of this group, would represent small
organisations. In that sense, it can be presumed that their own views would
influence the behaviour of the organisation in an important manner, raising
the issue of double voting, as outlined by a few in this thread. Given that
there are not so many who are voting, I think it is a real issue.
In a large organisation, it is more likely to approach the situation of a
perfect agent. In a small one, less; in the large one, the views of an
individual could be seen as more diluted and so less (or minimally)
influential. I don't know if NCSG has any such "large" organisation (or how
large one would need to be in any case)
So no easy answer. I think that what Avri suggests in the last part of her
reply is the best case scenario - the double-hat individual votes as an
individual, and someone else comes in to vote for the organisation. Maybe
it is just masquerade in the end (as what Paul seems to be hinting at) but
at least it feels better? Or rather, it shows some respect for the process
and allows us to function on the assumption that we are all here in good
faith (and not engineering organisations' participation just to get more
votes at the GNSO ;) )
Best,
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 6:01 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I really don't have a dog in this fight, since I am not even a voting
> individual, but only the alternate for an organization. But a few thoughts:
>
> Would you prohibit the organizational rep from being an individual member
> as well, or merely disenfranchise him/her?
>
> Is it unreasonable to think that an individual might have a different
> opinion in his/her personal capacity from that of the organization which
> s/he represents, such that the two votes would not be double counting?
>
> If we are following this logic to its conclusion, why should the
> individuals of any organizational member have an individual vote at all?
> After all, our organizations are admitted on the basis of thinking that
> they represent their membership and are given weighted votes based on their
> size already? Why should even the alternates (or indeed any other members)
> have a supplemental vote when they are part of the organization.
>
> By way of example -- EFFi probably has many supporters, board members, and
> staff (I pick them only b/c Tapani has named them -- not for any other
> reason). If EFFi has a vote, why should it be allowed to "game the system"
> by having its staff/Board/funders also vote in the same way? If we don't
> limit it, what is to stop a large organization from attempting a "take
> over."?
>
> I really don't have answers to this -- but the question is, I think, much
> more complex than we have made it out to be.
>
> Paul
>
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
> [log in to unmask]
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> www.redbranchconsulting.com
> My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=
> 0x9A830097CA066684
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Tapani
> Tarvainen
> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2018 9:46 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Organizational rep/individual members in elections
>
> Dear all,
>
> First full disclosure: I have been in this position in the past, voting
> both as individual member and as the representative of Electronic Frontier
> Finland (Effi). Not anymore though, after earlier controversy about it I
> asked Effi to appoint another official representative, so now I only have
> my individual vote in NCSG elections.
>
> That said, I now tend to agree that disallowing such double voting would
> be good for NCSG. But it is not quite as simple and obvious as it might
> seem at first.
>
> Besides the usefulness of adding such a rule, it is important that it
> would be done in proper order, following due process. In particular I think
> it would be inappropriate to change rules in the middle of ongoing
> election. So I think whatever is decided now should only apply to
> subsequent elections. And in implementing it we should follow our charter,
> and consider what kind of rules can and cannot be implemented without
> changing the charter.
>
> After all we're talking about disenfranchising or even removing members
> against their will, which is just about as serious as anything can be in an
> organization's rules.
>
> As a general observation: there's nothing unusual about one person having
> multiple votes or representing multiple interests in elections.
> In limited companies votes go by shares and a voter can represent multiple
> shareholders, or to pick a closer example, in GNSO council councillors can
> have a proxy vote in addition to their own. And of course in NCSG elections
> organizations already have more votes than individuals. Nor is it unheard
> of for someone to vote differently with different votes they're holding in
> the same election (indeed at least once I've voted differently with my
> individual vote than with Effi's vote in NCSG elections).
>
> There are, however, often limits on how many votes one person can have. In
> GNSO council a single councillor can only hold one proxy and thus at most
> two votes, for example. And some type of limited companies have
> restrictions too, like allowing one voter to hold at most certain
> percentage of votes. So I don't see any problem in principle for adopting
> such a rule for NCSG as well.
>
> I am not certain if it could be done without changing the charter,
> however. It might depend on how exactly it is done; depriving a member of
> their vote is a rather drastic thing to do, but perhaps making it a
> limitation on organizations' choice of their representatives would be
> easier.
>
> The more drastic option of disallowing one person even from being both
> individual member and organizational representative would also be possible,
> but considerably more complicated.
>
> One easy case is when handling new member applications, i.e., when either
> an organization in its application names a current member as its
> representative, or when an organization's representative applies for
> individual membership. In such situations NCSG EC can and should use its
> discretion to judge if it looks like just an attempt to get more votes - in
> particular if it looks like a de facto one-person organization, such an
> application could well be rejected. No new formal rules or charter changes
> would be needed, although EC could of course adopt internal guidelines for
> such situations.
>
> But when such a situation happens otherwise, when the two are already
> members, whether predating rule change or when an organization wants to
> change its representative to someone who's already an individual member, it
> becomes more difficult. It would either have to be written in member
> removal procedures that the individual membership would thereby be lost or
> as a restriction on who the organization can appoint as their
> representative. I'm not sure either could be done without changing the
> charter, nor do I think it'd be a good idea to begin with.
>
> As a practical observation, the "gaming of system" scenario would seem to
> be realistic just with such one-person organizations or cases where only
> one person in an organization is actually involved in NCSG - a large
> organization should have no trouble in selecting a representative who isn't
> an individual NCSG member.
>
> With that observation I conclude I can see no significant practical harm
> in prohibiting an individual from voting in two roles, and it would have
> definite advantages, so I'd be willing to support that.
> (I note though that formulating such a rule would take some care, but
> probably nothing really difficult.)
>
> I would not, however, want to disallow an individual member from even
> retaining their membership if they are an organization's representative at
> the same time. In particular I would not want to keep them from
> representing NCSG in working groups &c in their individual capacity.
>
> But whatever rule we choose to adopt, I would want it to be done right,
> following due process and taking care of compatibility with our charter,
> even changing it if need be. Asking ICANN legal team for an opinion about
> that might be a good idea.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Tapani Tarvainen
>
> On Jul 21 12:41, Collin Kurre ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
>
> > Hello Farzaneh,
> >
> > Thanks for raising this issue on the broader list.
> >
> > As you imply, one could imagine a situation where an individual member
> holds views that differ from their organization’s positions or strategies.
> Perhaps the more fundamental question is whether one person can be both an
> organizational representative and and individual member. Deciding on this
> question would preempt the need to determine whether an organizational
> opinion should invalidate the representing individual’s.
> >
> > Full disclosure: I was one of the organizational reps who was contacted
> and opted to forfeit my individual vote in the interest of fairness until
> this matter is decided by the group.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Collin Kurre
> >
> > --
> > Collin Kurre
> > ARTICLE 19
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 21, 2018, at 12:21 PM, farzaneh badii <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > I have sent the message below to NCSG EC and I think we need to have a
> discussion about it and make an official decision on this issue. Please
> chime in:
> > >
> > > At the moment the organizational reps who are individual members of
> NCSG can participate in the elections as both organizational rep and
> individual members. Apparently, it has been discussed repeatedly in the
> past with no decision. Other than they said it is not against the charter.
> > >
> > > Not having remembered that it has been discussed but no decision
> > > made, I started contacting those who were listed as an individual
> > > member as well as organizational rep on the check-in list and asked
> > > them to choose whether they want to be individual members or
> > > represent their organization, since being both allowed them to vote
> > > twice which I think is not acceptable for the integrity of
> > > elections. Tapani corrected me and said the issue was discussed but
> > > never decided against
> > > https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/election-reform/2017-June/000021.htm
> > > l
> > > <https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/election-reform/2017-June/000021.ht
> > > ml>
> > >
> > > I personally think it is unfair to allow organizational reps who are
> individual members to vote twice. This is because organizational reps
> (usually but not always) have autonomy from their organization to vote as
> they see appropriate and do not have a mandate as such. If they are also
> individual members, it provides them with the opportunity to vote twice and
> I think we need to fix it.
> > >
> > > It might be too late to do this in this election but we need to
> discuss and make a decision. I have started explaining the rationale to
> those who are organizational reps as well as individual members and asked
> them to decide what they want to do for this election voluntarily until we
> make a decision.
> > >
> > >
> > > Best
> > >
> > >
> > > Farzaneh
>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 19:41:33 -0400
From: farzaneh badii <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Organizational rep/individual members in elections
Hi Paul
These questions need to be answered and we should come to a conlusion
hopefully, but my understanding of the situation is as I outline below.
Please see my answers inline.
Farzaneh
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 12:02 PM Paul Rosenzweig <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I really don't have a dog in this fight, since I am not even a voting
> individual, but only the alternate for an organization. But a few thoughts:
>
> Would you prohibit the organizational rep from being an individual member
> as well, or merely disenfranchise him/her?
>
We ask the organizational rep to choose between individual membership and
organzational rep.If the person wants to be individual member as well,
s/he can only be the additional rep of the organization who can represent
the organization but not vote. I think this design will make it more likely
for the org reps to consult with their orgs before voting or at least have
one safeguard in place
>
> Is it unreasonable to think that an individual might have a different
> opinion in his/her personal capacity from that of the organization which
> s/he represents, such that the two votes would not be double counting?
>
No. But also we do not want to and can't get involved with verifying
whether they are voting based on the mandate of their org or based on their
personal decision.
Reps of organizations normally are the most involved with NCSG and its
processes. The organizations can give them the autonomy to decide based on
their best judgment on how to vote without any mandate. There is nothing
wrong with that and makes sense because the representative is the most
involved person who can decide in the best interest of the organization. I
think the problem comes from when the person can also vote in individual
capacity - so in this case the member is voting twice. It does not matter
if they have autonomy in their decision and that is given to them by the
org. But it matters if they have autonomy and also vote in individual
capacity. With autonomy in as organizational member and being an individual
member the person votes twice. No external factor to change their mind.
We cannot verify nor oblige reps of organizations to consult with their
organization before voting. But what we could do is to avoid the situation
that could potentially lead to such situations. And that is by not having
the individual member as the organizational rep.
I had some conversations with the members I apparoched and made the
examples below,
Examples:
Farzaneh is an individual member of NCSG. Farzaneh also represents IGP on
NCSG. IGP does not have any other person involved with NCSG and does not
have a strong opinion nor even knows the candidates - IGP allows Farzaneh
to vote at her own discretion. Farzaneh's votes will be the same as an
individual member and organizational member (there is no reason for
Farzaneh to change her mind). Farzaneh gets to vote twice.
Farzaneh is affiliated with IGP. Farzaneh is the individual member of NCSG.
IGP is also a member of NCSG being represented by another IGP affiliate.
Farzaneh has no autonomy over who IGP will vote for in this case, the IGP
rep on NCSG will consult with members and agrees on who to vote for/ or IGP
allows the rep to vote at its discretion. In this case Farzaneh's vote
might be the same as IGP vote, or it might not be. Farzaneh will not get
to vote twice.
> If we are following this logic to its conclusion, why should the
> individuals of any organizational member have an individual vote at all?
> After all, our organizations are admitted on the basis of thinking that
> they represent their membership and are given weighted votes based on their
> size already? Why should even the alternates (or indeed any other members)
> have a supplemental vote when they are part of the organization.
>
I am not sure how likely it is for this scenario to happen.Others who are
more experienced can let us know. But the scenario of organizational
members who are individual reps double vote is more likely to happen. If we
want to come up with a process to prevent this, we can see if it makes
sense to ask members whom their organizations are members of NCSG not to be
individual members and be additional reps of their org. But then if an
organization has a thousand members, does that mean all of them would not
be eligible? Or just staff and leaders of the organization would not be
eligible? It gets very comlicated.
>
> By way of example -- EFFi probably has many supporters, board members, and
> staff (I pick them only b/c Tapani has named them -- not for any other
> reason). If EFFi has a vote, why should it be allowed to "game the system"
> by having its staff/Board/funders also vote in the same way? If we don't
> limit it, what is to stop a large organization from attempting a "take
> over."?
>
> I really don't have answers to this -- but the question is, I think, much
> more complex than we have made it out to be.
>
> Paul
>
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
> [log in to unmask]
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> www.redbranchconsulting.com
> My PGP Key:
> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Tapani
> Tarvainen
> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2018 9:46 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Organizational rep/individual members in elections
>
> Dear all,
>
> First full disclosure: I have been in this position in the past, voting
> both as individual member and as the representative of Electronic Frontier
> Finland (Effi). Not anymore though, after earlier controversy about it I
> asked Effi to appoint another official representative, so now I only have
> my individual vote in NCSG elections.
>
> That said, I now tend to agree that disallowing such double voting would
> be good for NCSG. But it is not quite as simple and obvious as it might
> seem at first.
>
> Besides the usefulness of adding such a rule, it is important that it
> would be done in proper order, following due process. In particular I think
> it would be inappropriate to change rules in the middle of ongoing
> election. So I think whatever is decided now should only apply to
> subsequent elections. And in implementing it we should follow our charter,
> and consider what kind of rules can and cannot be implemented without
> changing the charter.
>
> After all we're talking about disenfranchising or even removing members
> against their will, which is just about as serious as anything can be in an
> organization's rules.
>
> As a general observation: there's nothing unusual about one person having
> multiple votes or representing multiple interests in elections.
> In limited companies votes go by shares and a voter can represent multiple
> shareholders, or to pick a closer example, in GNSO council councillors can
> have a proxy vote in addition to their own. And of course in NCSG elections
> organizations already have more votes than individuals. Nor is it unheard
> of for someone to vote differently with different votes they're holding in
> the same election (indeed at least once I've voted differently with my
> individual vote than with Effi's vote in NCSG elections).
>
> There are, however, often limits on how many votes one person can have. In
> GNSO council a single councillor can only hold one proxy and thus at most
> two votes, for example. And some type of limited companies have
> restrictions too, like allowing one voter to hold at most certain
> percentage of votes. So I don't see any problem in principle for adopting
> such a rule for NCSG as well.
>
> I am not certain if it could be done without changing the charter,
> however. It might depend on how exactly it is done; depriving a member of
> their vote is a rather drastic thing to do, but perhaps making it a
> limitation on organizations' choice of their representatives would be
> easier.
>
> The more drastic option of disallowing one person even from being both
> individual member and organizational representative would also be possible,
> but considerably more complicated.
>
> One easy case is when handling new member applications, i.e., when either
> an organization in its application names a current member as its
> representative, or when an organization's representative applies for
> individual membership. In such situations NCSG EC can and should use its
> discretion to judge if it looks like just an attempt to get more votes - in
> particular if it looks like a de facto one-person organization, such an
> application could well be rejected. No new formal rules or charter changes
> would be needed, although EC could of course adopt internal guidelines for
> such situations.
>
> But when such a situation happens otherwise, when the two are already
> members, whether predating rule change or when an organization wants to
> change its representative to someone who's already an individual member, it
> becomes more difficult. It would either have to be written in member
> removal procedures that the individual membership would thereby be lost or
> as a restriction on who the organization can appoint as their
> representative. I'm not sure either could be done without changing the
> charter, nor do I think it'd be a good idea to begin with.
>
> As a practical observation, the "gaming of system" scenario would seem to
> be realistic just with such one-person organizations or cases where only
> one person in an organization is actually involved in NCSG - a large
> organization should have no trouble in selecting a representative who isn't
> an individual NCSG member.
>
> With that observation I conclude I can see no significant practical harm
> in prohibiting an individual from voting in two roles, and it would have
> definite advantages, so I'd be willing to support that.
> (I note though that formulating such a rule would take some care, but
> probably nothing really difficult.)
>
> I would not, however, want to disallow an individual member from even
> retaining their membership if they are an organization's representative at
> the same time. In particular I would not want to keep them from
> representing NCSG in working groups &c in their individual capacity.
>
> But whatever rule we choose to adopt, I would want it to be done right,
> following due process and taking care of compatibility with our charter,
> even changing it if need be. Asking ICANN legal team for an opinion about
> that might be a good idea.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Tapani Tarvainen
>
> On Jul 21 12:41, Collin Kurre ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
>
> > Hello Farzaneh,
> >
> > Thanks for raising this issue on the broader list.
> >
> > As you imply, one could imagine a situation where an individual member
> holds views that differ from their organization’s positions or strategies.
> Perhaps the more fundamental question is whether one person can be both an
> organizational representative and and individual member. Deciding on this
> question would preempt the need to determine whether an organizational
> opinion should invalidate the representing individual’s.
> >
> > Full disclosure: I was one of the organizational reps who was contacted
> and opted to forfeit my individual vote in the interest of fairness until
> this matter is decided by the group.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Collin Kurre
> >
> > --
> > Collin Kurre
> > ARTICLE 19
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 21, 2018, at 12:21 PM, farzaneh badii <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > I have sent the message below to NCSG EC and I think we need to have a
> discussion about it and make an official decision on this issue. Please
> chime in:
> > >
> > > At the moment the organizational reps who are individual members of
> NCSG can participate in the elections as both organizational rep and
> individual members. Apparently, it has been discussed repeatedly in the
> past with no decision. Other than they said it is not against the charter.
> > >
> > > Not having remembered that it has been discussed but no decision
> > > made, I started contacting those who were listed as an individual
> > > member as well as organizational rep on the check-in list and asked
> > > them to choose whether they want to be individual members or
> > > represent their organization, since being both allowed them to vote
> > > twice which I think is not acceptable for the integrity of
> > > elections. Tapani corrected me and said the issue was discussed but
> > > never decided against
> > > https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/election-reform/2017-June/000021.htm
> > > l
> > > <https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/election-reform/2017-June/000021.ht
> > > ml>
> > >
> > > I personally think it is unfair to allow organizational reps who are
> individual members to vote twice. This is because organizational reps
> (usually but not always) have autonomy from their organization to vote as
> they see appropriate and do not have a mandate as such. If they are also
> individual members, it provides them with the opportunity to vote twice and
> I think we need to fix it.
> > >
> > > It might be too late to do this in this election but we need to
> discuss and make a decision. I have started explaining the rationale to
> those who are organizational reps as well as individual members and asked
> them to decide what they want to do for this election voluntarily until we
> make a decision.
> > >
> > >
> > > Best
> > >
> > >
> > > Farzaneh
>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 20:45:57 -0400
From: farzaneh badii <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Organizational rep/individual members in elections
Farzaneh
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 9:47 AM Tapani Tarvainen <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> First full disclosure: I have been in this position in the past,
> voting both as individual member and as the representative of
> Electronic Frontier Finland (Effi). Not anymore though, after earlier
> controversy about it I asked Effi to appoint another official
> representative, so now I only have my individual vote in NCSG
> elections.
>
> That said, I now tend to agree that disallowing such double voting
> would be good for NCSG. But it is not quite as simple and obvious as
> it might seem at first.
>
> Besides the usefulness of adding such a rule, it is important that it
> would be done in proper order, following due process. In particular I
> think it would be inappropriate to change rules in the middle of
> ongoing election. So I think whatever is decided now should only apply
> to subsequent elections. And in implementing it we should follow our
> charter, and consider what kind of rules can and cannot be implemented
> without changing the charter.
> After all we're talking about disenfranchising or even removing
> members against their will, which is just about as serious as anything
> can be in an organization's rules.
>
Thanks Tapani. I think members should be given a choice for this
election. There is nothing unfair about being given a choice, they assess
the situation, they decide based on the current discussion where they are
standing on the issue. As to my previous email to them asking them to
choose, well I had the impression that this issue had been resolved!
>
> As a general observation: there's nothing unusual about one person
> having multiple votes or representing multiple interests in elections.
> In limited companies votes go by shares and a voter can represent
> multiple shareholders, or to pick a closer example, in GNSO council
> councillors can have a proxy vote in addition to their own. And of
> course in NCSG elections organizations already have more votes than
> individuals. Nor is it unheard of for someone to vote differently
> with different votes they're holding in the same election (indeed
> at least once I've voted differently with my individual vote than
> with Effi's vote in NCSG elections).
>
I warn us against mixing up the issues. Here in councilors proxy we are
talking about a totally different scenario. the councilor gives another
councilor proxy to vote on his/her behalf and instruct them how to vote and
the proxy is prohibited from voting against how has been instructed(
councilors proxies are always instructed, GNSO operating rules says "The
Councilor to whom the vote is transferred shall exercise a vote in line
with the appointing organization’s stated position. ")
Orgs have more voting *weight*, they don't have more "votes" than
individuals. They don't get three ballots when voting, they get one ballot
and vote once, their one time vote is weighed more than individual votes.
In the scenario of organizational reps being individual members, and if
they are given autonomy on behalf of their organization to vote as they
like, the person gets to vote twice. It is like going into the election
booth, vote once, get out be allowed to go back again and vote again. There
is no reason whatsoever that the individual votes differently as
organizational rep (in case of non instructed votes). It is the same
person, with the same concept of candidates, NCSG, and the world and
nothing obliges that person to change her/his mind when voting as
organizational rep. And we can't verify nor oblige orgs to instruct their
reps.
>
> There are, however, often limits on how many votes one person can
> have. In GNSO council a single councillor can only hold one proxy and
> thus at most two votes, for example. And some type of limited
> companies have restrictions too, like allowing one voter to hold at
> most certain percentage of votes. So I don't see any problem in
> principle for adopting such a rule for NCSG as well.
>
Not how many votes a person can have. how many votes a councilor is
instructed to carry out on behalf of the absent councilors. "instructed
voting"
>
> I am not certain if it could be done without changing the charter,
> however. It might depend on how exactly it is done; depriving a member
> of their vote is a rather drastic thing to do, but perhaps making it a
> limitation on organizations' choice of their representatives would be
> easier.
>
> The more drastic option of disallowing one person even from being
> both individual member and organizational representative would
> also be possible, but considerably more complicated.
>
> One easy case is when handling new member applications, i.e., when
> either an organization in its application names a current member as
> its representative, or when an organization's representative applies
> for individual membership. In such situations NCSG EC can and should
> use its discretion to judge if it looks like just an attempt to get
> more votes - in particular if it looks like a de facto one-person
> organization, such an application could well be rejected. No new
> formal rules or charter changes would be needed, although EC could of
> course adopt internal guidelines for such situations.
>
> But when such a situation happens otherwise, when the two are already
> members, whether predating rule change or when an organization wants
> to change its representative to someone who's already an individual
> member, it becomes more difficult. It would either have to be written
> in member removal procedures that the individual membership would
> thereby be lost or as a restriction on who the organization can
> appoint as their representative. I'm not sure either could be done
> without changing the charter, nor do I think it'd be a good idea to
> begin with.
>
> As a practical observation, the "gaming of system" scenario would
> seem to be realistic just with such one-person organizations or
> cases where only one person in an organization is actually
> involved in NCSG - a large organization should have no trouble
> in selecting a representative who isn't an individual NCSG member.
> With that observation I conclude I can see no significant practical
> harm in prohibiting an individual from voting in two roles, and it
> would have definite advantages, so I'd be willing to support that.
> (I note though that formulating such a rule would take some care,
> but probably nothing really difficult.)
>
Ok, we are on the same page then.
>
> I would not, however, want to disallow an individual member from
> even retaining their membership if they are an organization's
> representative at the same time. In particular I would not want to
> keep them from representing NCSG in working groups &c in their
> individual capacity.
>
> But whatever rule we choose to adopt, I would want it to be done
> right, following due process and taking care of compatibility with our
> charter, even changing it if need be. Asking ICANN legal team for an
> opinion about that might be a good idea.
>
Tapani I believe you mean "fair process". When you keep saying due process
alarms start going off in my legal head and think about court and judicial
processes etc. We are not talking about alternative dispute resolution or
court! we are talking about a set of procedural rules about the members'
membership status.
This does not really have to be too complicated. Members can decide whether
they want to be representing their org and not be an individual rep, be an
additional representative of their org or/and opt for being individual
reps. The thing we need to discuss is whether additional reps of
organizations can also be an individual member of NCSG. Because additional
reps dont get to vote, i don't see a problem. But someone might have
another idea or might have memorized the charter better.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Tapani Tarvainen
>
> On Jul 21 12:41, Collin Kurre ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
>
> > Hello Farzaneh,
> >
> > Thanks for raising this issue on the broader list.
> >
> > As you imply, one could imagine a situation where an individual member
> holds views that differ from their organization’s positions or strategies.
> Perhaps the more fundamental question is whether one person can be both an
> organizational representative and and individual member. Deciding on this
> question would preempt the need to determine whether an organizational
> opinion should invalidate the representing individual’s.
> >
> > Full disclosure: I was one of the organizational reps who was contacted
> and opted to forfeit my individual vote in the interest of fairness until
> this matter is decided by the group.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Collin Kurre
> >
> > --
> > Collin Kurre
> > ARTICLE 19
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 21, 2018, at 12:21 PM, farzaneh badii <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > I have sent the message below to NCSG EC and I think we need to have a
> discussion about it and make an official decision on this issue. Please
> chime in:
> > >
> > > At the moment the organizational reps who are individual members of
> NCSG can participate in the elections as both organizational rep and
> individual members. Apparently, it has been discussed repeatedly in the
> past with no decision. Other than they said it is not against the charter.
> > >
> > > Not having remembered that it has been discussed but no decision made,
> I started contacting those who were listed as an individual member as well
> as organizational rep on the check-in list and asked them to choose whether
> they want to be individual members or represent their organization, since
> being both allowed them to vote twice which I think is not acceptable for
> the integrity of elections. Tapani corrected me and said the issue was
> discussed but never decided against
> https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/election-reform/2017-June/000021.html <
> https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/election-reform/2017-June/000021.html>
> > >
> > > I personally think it is unfair to allow organizational reps who are
> individual members to vote twice. This is because organizational reps
> (usually but not always) have autonomy from their organization to vote as
> they see appropriate and do not have a mandate as such. If they are also
> individual members, it provides them with the opportunity to vote twice and
> I think we need to fix it.
> > >
> > > It might be too late to do this in this election but we need to
> discuss and make a decision. I have started explaining the rationale to
> those who are organizational reps as well as individual members and asked
> them to decide what they want to do for this election voluntarily until we
> make a decision.
> > >
> > >
> > > Best
> > >
> > >
> > > Farzaneh
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 10:34:20 +0800
From: David Cake <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Organizational rep/individual members in elections
There are many reasons why an organisational representative might also want to be an individual member, and most of them are reasonable and ethical. I absolutely do not think we should stop people from being both individual and organisational members.
But double voting is an issue. There are a number of ways we could handle this. I think we should have a discussion on the issue as a group - we should not assume everyone will have the same position on the issue.
I do agree with Tapani that we should not change the rules on voting during an election.
David
> On 22 Jul 2018, at 9:46 pm, Tapani Tarvainen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> First full disclosure: I have been in this position in the past,
> voting both as individual member and as the representative of
> Electronic Frontier Finland (Effi). Not anymore though, after earlier
> controversy about it I asked Effi to appoint another official
> representative, so now I only have my individual vote in NCSG
> elections.
>
> That said, I now tend to agree that disallowing such double voting
> would be good for NCSG. But it is not quite as simple and obvious as
> it might seem at first.
>
> Besides the usefulness of adding such a rule, it is important that it
> would be done in proper order, following due process. In particular I
> think it would be inappropriate to change rules in the middle of
> ongoing election. So I think whatever is decided now should only apply
> to subsequent elections. And in implementing it we should follow our
> charter, and consider what kind of rules can and cannot be implemented
> without changing the charter.
>
> After all we're talking about disenfranchising or even removing
> members against their will, which is just about as serious as anything
> can be in an organization's rules.
>
> As a general observation: there's nothing unusual about one person
> having multiple votes or representing multiple interests in elections.
> In limited companies votes go by shares and a voter can represent
> multiple shareholders, or to pick a closer example, in GNSO council
> councillors can have a proxy vote in addition to their own. And of
> course in NCSG elections organizations already have more votes than
> individuals. Nor is it unheard of for someone to vote differently
> with different votes they're holding in the same election (indeed
> at least once I've voted differently with my individual vote than
> with Effi's vote in NCSG elections).
>
> There are, however, often limits on how many votes one person can
> have. In GNSO council a single councillor can only hold one proxy and
> thus at most two votes, for example. And some type of limited
> companies have restrictions too, like allowing one voter to hold at
> most certain percentage of votes. So I don't see any problem in
> principle for adopting such a rule for NCSG as well.
>
> I am not certain if it could be done without changing the charter,
> however. It might depend on how exactly it is done; depriving a member
> of their vote is a rather drastic thing to do, but perhaps making it a
> limitation on organizations' choice of their representatives would be
> easier.
>
> The more drastic option of disallowing one person even from being
> both individual member and organizational representative would
> also be possible, but considerably more complicated.
>
> One easy case is when handling new member applications, i.e., when
> either an organization in its application names a current member as
> its representative, or when an organization's representative applies
> for individual membership. In such situations NCSG EC can and should
> use its discretion to judge if it looks like just an attempt to get
> more votes - in particular if it looks like a de facto one-person
> organization, such an application could well be rejected. No new
> formal rules or charter changes would be needed, although EC could of
> course adopt internal guidelines for such situations.
>
> But when such a situation happens otherwise, when the two are already
> members, whether predating rule change or when an organization wants
> to change its representative to someone who's already an individual
> member, it becomes more difficult. It would either have to be written
> in member removal procedures that the individual membership would
> thereby be lost or as a restriction on who the organization can
> appoint as their representative. I'm not sure either could be done
> without changing the charter, nor do I think it'd be a good idea to
> begin with.
>
> As a practical observation, the "gaming of system" scenario would
> seem to be realistic just with such one-person organizations or
> cases where only one person in an organization is actually
> involved in NCSG - a large organization should have no trouble
> in selecting a representative who isn't an individual NCSG member.
>
> With that observation I conclude I can see no significant practical
> harm in prohibiting an individual from voting in two roles, and it
> would have definite advantages, so I'd be willing to support that.
> (I note though that formulating such a rule would take some care,
> but probably nothing really difficult.)
>
> I would not, however, want to disallow an individual member from
> even retaining their membership if they are an organization's
> representative at the same time. In particular I would not want to
> keep them from representing NCSG in working groups &c in their
> individual capacity.
>
> But whatever rule we choose to adopt, I would want it to be done
> right, following due process and taking care of compatibility with our
> charter, even changing it if need be. Asking ICANN legal team for an
> opinion about that might be a good idea.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Tapani Tarvainen
>
> On Jul 21 12:41, Collin Kurre ([log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>) wrote:
>
>> Hello Farzaneh,
>>
>> Thanks for raising this issue on the broader list.
>>
>> As you imply, one could imagine a situation where an individual member holds views that differ from their organization’s positions or strategies. Perhaps the more fundamental question is whether one person can be both an organizational representative and and individual member. Deciding on this question would preempt the need to determine whether an organizational opinion should invalidate the representing individual’s.
>>
>> Full disclosure: I was one of the organizational reps who was contacted and opted to forfeit my individual vote in the interest of fairness until this matter is decided by the group.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Collin Kurre
>>
>> --
>> Collin Kurre
>> ARTICLE 19
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 21, 2018, at 12:21 PM, farzaneh badii <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> I have sent the message below to NCSG EC and I think we need to have a discussion about it and make an official decision on this issue. Please chime in:
>>>
>>> At the moment the organizational reps who are individual members of NCSG can participate in the elections as both organizational rep and individual members. Apparently, it has been discussed repeatedly in the past with no decision. Other than they said it is not against the charter.
>>>
>>> Not having remembered that it has been discussed but no decision made, I started contacting those who were listed as an individual member as well as organizational rep on the check-in list and asked them to choose whether they want to be individual members or represent their organization, since being both allowed them to vote twice which I think is not acceptable for the integrity of elections. Tapani corrected me and said the issue was discussed but never decided against https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/election-reform/2017-June/000021.html <https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/election-reform/2017-June/000021.html> <https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/election-reform/2017-June/000021.html <https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/election-reform/2017-June/000021.html>>
>>>
>>> I personally think it is unfair to allow organizational reps who are individual members to vote twice. This is because organizational reps (usually but not always) have autonomy from their organization to vote as they see appropriate and do not have a mandate as such. If they are also individual members, it provides them with the opportunity to vote twice and I think we need to fix it.
>>>
>>> It might be too late to do this in this election but we need to discuss and make a decision. I have started explaining the rationale to those who are organizational reps as well as individual members and asked them to decide what they want to do for this election voluntarily until we make a decision.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>>
>>> Farzaneh
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 22:59:30 -0500
From: Carlos Vera <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Organizational rep/individual members in elections
It seems to me that there is reasonable evidence that should lead us to analyze the rules, even in the midst of a vote, because it is showing that the system is seriously compromised and at risk of being inequitable and unbalanced. If this modification does not find support, we must at least have accurate and transparent information about the members who are in the position evidenced by being individual members of organizations that in turn have other representatives in the group.
Carlos Vera
> On Jul 22, 2018, at 9:34 PM, David Cake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> There are many reasons why an organisational representative might also want to be an individual member, and most of them are reasonable and ethical. I absolutely do not think we should stop people from being both individual and organisational members.
>
> But double voting is an issue. There are a number of ways we could handle this. I think we should have a discussion on the issue as a group - we should not assume everyone will have the same position on the issue.
>
> I do agree with Tapani that we should not change the rules on voting during an election.
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>> On 22 Jul 2018, at 9:46 pm, Tapani Tarvainen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> First full disclosure: I have been in this position in the past,
>> voting both as individual member and as the representative of
>> Electronic Frontier Finland (Effi). Not anymore though, after earlier
>> controversy about it I asked Effi to appoint another official
>> representative, so now I only have my individual vote in NCSG
>> elections.
>>
>> That said, I now tend to agree that disallowing such double voting
>> would be good for NCSG. But it is not quite as simple and obvious as
>> it might seem at first.
>>
>> Besides the usefulness of adding such a rule, it is important that it
>> would be done in proper order, following due process. In particular I
>> think it would be inappropriate to change rules in the middle of
>> ongoing election. So I think whatever is decided now should only apply
>> to subsequent elections. And in implementing it we should follow our
>> charter, and consider what kind of rules can and cannot be implemented
>> without changing the charter.
>>
>> After all we're talking about disenfranchising or even removing
>> members against their will, which is just about as serious as anything
>> can be in an organization's rules.
>>
>> As a general observation: there's nothing unusual about one person
>> having multiple votes or representing multiple interests in elections.
>> In limited companies votes go by shares and a voter can represent
>> multiple shareholders, or to pick a closer example, in GNSO council
>> councillors can have a proxy vote in addition to their own. And of
>> course in NCSG elections organizations already have more votes than
>> individuals. Nor is it unheard of for someone to vote differently
>> with different votes they're holding in the same election (indeed
>> at least once I've voted differently with my individual vote than
>> with Effi's vote in NCSG elections).
>>
>> There are, however, often limits on how many votes one person can
>> have. In GNSO council a single councillor can only hold one proxy and
>> thus at most two votes, for example. And some type of limited
>> companies have restrictions too, like allowing one voter to hold at
>> most certain percentage of votes. So I don't see any problem in
>> principle for adopting such a rule for NCSG as well.
>>
>> I am not certain if it could be done without changing the charter,
>> however. It might depend on how exactly it is done; depriving a member
>> of their vote is a rather drastic thing to do, but perhaps making it a
>> limitation on organizations' choice of their representatives would be
>> easier.
>>
>> The more drastic option of disallowing one person even from being
>> both individual member and organizational representative would
>> also be possible, but considerably more complicated.
>>
>> One easy case is when handling new member applications, i.e., when
>> either an organization in its application names a current member as
>> its representative, or when an organization's representative applies
>> for individual membership. In such situations NCSG EC can and should
>> use its discretion to judge if it looks like just an attempt to get
>> more votes - in particular if it looks like a de facto one-person
>> organization, such an application could well be rejected. No new
>> formal rules or charter changes would be needed, although EC could of
>> course adopt internal guidelines for such situations.
>>
>> But when such a situation happens otherwise, when the two are already
>> members, whether predating rule change or when an organization wants
>> to change its representative to someone who's already an individual
>> member, it becomes more difficult. It would either have to be written
>> in member removal procedures that the individual membership would
>> thereby be lost or as a restriction on who the organization can
>> appoint as their representative. I'm not sure either could be done
>> without changing the charter, nor do I think it'd be a good idea to
>> begin with.
>>
>> As a practical observation, the "gaming of system" scenario would
>> seem to be realistic just with such one-person organizations or
>> cases where only one person in an organization is actually
>> involved in NCSG - a large organization should have no trouble
>> in selecting a representative who isn't an individual NCSG member.
>>
>> With that observation I conclude I can see no significant practical
>> harm in prohibiting an individual from voting in two roles, and it
>> would have definite advantages, so I'd be willing to support that.
>> (I note though that formulating such a rule would take some care,
>> but probably nothing really difficult.)
>>
>> I would not, however, want to disallow an individual member from
>> even retaining their membership if they are an organization's
>> representative at the same time. In particular I would not want to
>> keep them from representing NCSG in working groups &c in their
>> individual capacity.
>>
>> But whatever rule we choose to adopt, I would want it to be done
>> right, following due process and taking care of compatibility with our
>> charter, even changing it if need be. Asking ICANN legal team for an
>> opinion about that might be a good idea.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>
>>> On Jul 21 12:41, Collin Kurre ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Farzaneh,
>>>
>>> Thanks for raising this issue on the broader list.
>>>
>>> As you imply, one could imagine a situation where an individual member holds views that differ from their organization’s positions or strategies. Perhaps the more fundamental question is whether one person can be both an organizational representative and and individual member. Deciding on this question would preempt the need to determine whether an organizational opinion should invalidate the representing individual’s.
>>>
>>> Full disclosure: I was one of the organizational reps who was contacted and opted to forfeit my individual vote in the interest of fairness until this matter is decided by the group.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Collin Kurre
>>>
>>> --
>>> Collin Kurre
>>> ARTICLE 19
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jul 21, 2018, at 12:21 PM, farzaneh badii <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> I have sent the message below to NCSG EC and I think we need to have a discussion about it and make an official decision on this issue. Please chime in:
>>>>
>>>> At the moment the organizational reps who are individual members of NCSG can participate in the elections as both organizational rep and individual members. Apparently, it has been discussed repeatedly in the past with no decision. Other than they said it is not against the charter.
>>>>
>>>> Not having remembered that it has been discussed but no decision made, I started contacting those who were listed as an individual member as well as organizational rep on the check-in list and asked them to choose whether they want to be individual members or represent their organization, since being both allowed them to vote twice which I think is not acceptable for the integrity of elections. Tapani corrected me and said the issue was discussed but never decided against https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/election-reform/2017-June/000021.html <https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/election-reform/2017-June/000021.html>
>>>>
>>>> I personally think it is unfair to allow organizational reps who are individual members to vote twice. This is because organizational reps (usually but not always) have autonomy from their organization to vote as they see appropriate and do not have a mandate as such. If they are also individual members, it provides them with the opportunity to vote twice and I think we need to fix it.
>>>>
>>>> It might be too late to do this in this election but we need to discuss and make a decision. I have started explaining the rationale to those who are organizational reps as well as individual members and asked them to decide what they want to do for this election voluntarily until we make a decision.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Farzaneh
>
------------------------------
End of NCSG-DISCUSS Digest - 21 Jul 2018 to 22 Jul 2018 (#2018-223)
*******************************************************************
|
