Hi all,
Thank you Lori for this clarification.
Our beloved and late Alain Berranger (may hios soul RIP) has explained
to me that NPOC is for for the Not-for-Profit organizations and NCUC
for individuals with non-commercial concerns.
It's very good to know the origin of this situation.
Thanks again Lori, Milton, Rafik and Avri for these explanations.
Warmest greetings.
-Olévié-
2014-09-22 17:55 GMT+00:00 Lori Schulman <[log in to unmask]>:
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> I am speaking as an individual representative of ASCD on this string and not as member of the NPOC-EC or NCSG-EC. The NPOC EC is drafting its own response.
>
>
>
> I think that Martin's points are valid as there is confusion as to the difference and meaning of the constituencies. The organizational structure adds to that confusion. Milton's vast institutional knowledge certainly adds some clarity about how the situation has evolved but I want to point out a few things. First of all, Section 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 of NPOC charter requires that members be organizations not individuals. So, NPOC cannot start admitting individuals at any time. NPOC was organized by a group of concerned nonprofits because there are points were NCUC and nonprofit organizational interests diverged...primarily in the area of the protection of organizational names. While we are aligned very closely with issues regarding access and free speech, there are areas of concern regarding the security of the internet as it related to the misuse of organizational names for fundraising and fraud. Some of the rights protection mechanisms that were being considered for commercial entities were of strong interest to nonprofits particularly those with a global brand presence. There were other issues as well and a lot of negotiating. I was not part of the those negotiations at the time. However, there are others who were from the nonprofit org side who may want to chime in about what those discussions entailed and why the outcome is what it is.
>
>
>
> Whether or not constituencies are still a good idea is certainly a topic for discussion. My own feeling is that while nonprofit orgs may have some similar concerns to commercial entities in the name space there are many areas where they diverge when it comes to talking about access and accountability. There is a need for a home for nonprofit organizations as organizations. For years, NCUC was that home. However, there was enough interest generated within the orgs themselves that NPOC was born.
>
>
>
> Lori
>
>
>
> Lori S. Schulman · General Counsel
> 1703 North Beauregard Street
>
> Alexandria, VA 22311-1714
>
> P 703-575-5678 · [log in to unmask]
> [image: cid:image001.png@01CC81E2.512C46F0]
>
>
>
>
>
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 1:14 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: New member admission process and member databases
>
>
>
> Martin
>
> Some useful history for you. Prior to the GNSO reorganization, constituencies _were_ the basic organizational units of the GNSO. However, the noncommercial users constituency (NCUC) was outnumbered by commercial user constituencies 3 to 1, and thus had no influence whatsoever.
>
>
>
> In order to balance representation, some board-inspired reforms came up with the idea of broader stakeholder groups, which would be balanced between contracted parties (registrars and registries) and non-contracted or "user" parties (commercial and noncommercial stakeholder groups).
>
>
>
> Under the new system Stakeholder Groups (SGs) became key units of the ICANN regime and as such commanded certain staff and support resources. We told ICANN staff at the time that it made no sense to continue to have constituencies AND SGs. Indeed, none of the contracted parties have "constituencies" any more. NCUC fought like hell to have an integrated SG so that we could avoid the organizational complexity and end user confusion that would come from a two-tiered process. We only partially succeeded, due to some really silly political reasons that we don't have time to go into here.
>
> One of the problems with constituencies is that if you succeed in creating one, you command support resources. So there is kind of an artificial incentive to break off from larger groups and form your own "constituency" so that you can be its officer and get travel support and whatever. In the commercial SG, which already had 3 existing constituencies, they refused to dissolve into the larger SG. As a result, Commercial SG constituencies have turned into protected fiefdoms which have actually outlawed the creation of any new constituency groupings that are not approved by the existing ones!
>
>
>
> There are, in fact, no significant differences in the issue and policy perspectives of NPOC and NCUC. NCUC admits individual users, but most of its members are still organizations - and NPOC could decide to admit individual users tomorrow.
>
>
>
> I think your analysis of the problem has it backwards. The constituencies are the problem, not the SG structure. We should abolish constituencies, as the contracting parties already have. We should have an integrated SG, and allow ad hoc interest groups to form within it around specific policy issues
>
>
>
> The best way to resolve these problems is to dissolve constituencies altogether and make the noncommercial/civil society presence in GNSO an integrated Noncommercial Stakeholders Group.
>
>
>
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Martin Pablo Silva Valent
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 11:57 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] New member admission process and member databases
>
>
>
> Thanks all for the comments. They were helpful.
>
>
>
> I do understand how it works now, what I am saying is that for me it seems dysfunctional, and that NCUC members and NPOC members have different stakes to defend, and creating this third instance (the NCSG) where everything mixes up seems unnecessary messy, although I can see a role of umbrella for the NCSG.
>
>
>
> There is a conceptual mistake in the design of the NCSG. NCUC and NPOC are different stakeholders, since they identify different kinds of stakes, the reality of non for profit is completely different from an individual user, even when they are both non-commercial. In addition, even though the GNSO demands to have a NCSG, the proper way to deal with this NPOC/NCUC diversity is no to mix them but to allow them to define themselves, something that ion the current process is diluted.
>
>
>
> In other words, what we call constituencies in this case should be the main consensus builder, since they are the closest to the stakeholders. Having the NCSG build consensus for them does not really make it rough, it makes it confusing by disregarding the real stakeholder group voice, the constituencies voice. The NCSG should be the result of the different consensus reached in the constituencies. I can understand creating new constituencies for a better structure, but I cannot see useful to have individual members in the NCSG that don't belong to either NCUC or NPOC, if another constituency is necessary to hold another specific type of voices then another one should be build.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Martín.
>
>
> Martín P. Silva Valent
>
> Abogado / Lawyer
>
> +54 911 64993943
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Este email, incluyendo adjuntos, podría contener información confidencial protegida por ley y es para uso exclusivo de su destinatario. Si Ud. no es el destinatario, se le advierte que cualquier uso, difusión, copia o retención de este email o su contenido está estrictamente prohibido. Si Ud. recibio este email por error, por favor avise inmediatamente al remitente por teléfono o email y borre el mismo de su computadora. / This e-mail, including any attachments, may contain information that is protected by law as privileged and confidential, and is transmitted for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying or retention of this e-mail or the information contained herein is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or reply e-mail, and permanently delete this e-mail from your computer system.
>
>
>
> 2014-09-22 12:23 GMT-03:00 Rafik Dammak <[log in to unmask]>:
>>
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>>
>>
>> I hope that I can clarify the situation here for you . as laywe, I think you will find some time to read the NCSG charter which explain the principles and give you better understanding : https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Charter
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I just never fully understood why NCUC and NPOC do not handle their own application process.
>>
>>
>>
>> NCUC and NPOC handle their applications process, NCSG only approve NCSG members who may or not want to join constituencies, it is up to NCUC and NPOC to approve them as their members.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why do people need to be NCSG first?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It would seem more useful that the NCSG where just an umbrella for NPOC and NCUC to help coordinate the NCUC and NPOC leaders.
>>
>>
>>
>> yes we need NCSG, in fact constituencies cannot exist without it, they can be created and disbanded while the SG remains. it is not just in umbrella, a concept which may lead to the misunderstanding. it has the committees populated with representation from constituencies and also elected officers like the NCSG chair and also the election of GNSO councillors to represent the whole stakeholder group.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think you observed several times how many policies are discussed and statement done at the SG level.
>>
>>
>>
>> the stakeholder group model also exist in other parts of GNSO such the contracted party (registries and registrars )where there is no constituency per se.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The present way of having NCSG members that are also NCUC and NPOC creates a double representation that can be confusing, misleading and dysfunctional. Am I clear with this idea?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> there is confusion here, a NCSG member can be just a NCSG member without joining constituencies or joining both or just 1 ot them . joining a constituency may be important for a member to work on some topic if s/he wants but it is not mandatory.
>>
>> there is no double representation but more diversity of representation and affiliation. I don't think you disagree with this.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I think the NCSG should not act like a stakeholder itself but as a coalition of the stakeholder that make part of it, therefore, the NCSG would just be the place where NCUC and NPOC community leaders meet to take things up. If not, it seems that the decision made in the NCUC or in NPOC through the consensus are not valued.
>>
>>
>>
>> if NCUC or NPOC want to make their statements or own positions, they are not prevented to do so. having NCSG ensure having a more common positions and avoid building silos that won't communicate with each other and weaken them . at NCSG we work to build a position that have consensus of larger group, don't you think that is really strong? constituencies can also send their own statement to defend other points than a common position if they want.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> It makes no sense that the same members that debate and reach consensus in NCUC and NPOC separately are the ones that debate about the same decision and reach a new and different consensus in the NCSG. The decision of NPOC and NCUC should be considered equal inside the NCSG and the NCSG decision should be a higher hierarchy consensus that brings together the already consensus made in NCUC and NPOC (a consensus of consensus in an upper level than the bottom stakeholder). I believe than the current process takes away consensus from the real bottoms, NPOC and NCUC, and brings a dysfunctional dynamic where NCUC and NPOC voices, especially NPOC's, are diluted for no real reason thanks to a double representation of NCUC and NPCO members in the NCSG as NCSG members.
>>
>>
>>
>> the constituencies have the same representation in the executive and policy committees, so they are able to provide their positions via their representatives who should liaise with their constituencies, in particular for the latter regarding the policies.
>>
>> at NCSG ,we allow all members to communicate and debate together and so avoid a silo effect that will prevent members of different groups from discussing with each other.
>>
>>
>>
>> we have real bottom-up process here: the individual and organizational members who can participate directly at NCSG level and expressing their ideas . don't you think that is really powerful and avoid voices trapped in structures level?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Just and idea, don't bite my head off!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> no worry, all comments are welcome, it is learning space for everybody. hope that clarified things for you.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rafik
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-09-22 11:10 GMT-03:00 Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> agree completely.
>>>>
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 22-Sep-14 04:40, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>>> > Which brings me to one technical issue I've been harping about
>>>> > to various people privately for some time: I see little point
>>>> > in maintaining three distinct member databases, when two
>>>> > are (required to be) subsets of the third. It would be much
>>>> > easier to maintain just NCSG member database and have
>>>> > constituency membership there as an attribute
>>>> > (of course still leaving it up to each constituency to
>>>> > decide who they accept as their members, they just would
>>>> > not need to maintain members' contact info &c separately).
>>>> > This would make for an easy workflow for the three ECs,
>>>> > one place for members to check their membership details, &c.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Learn the secrets to great leadership practices at the ASCD Conference on Educational Leadership, October 31-November 2, 2014 in Orlando, Florida. Featured presenters include Todd Whitaker, Baruti Kafele, Robyn Jackson, and Carol Ann Tomlinson. Register NOW at www.ascd.org/cel.
>
> This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of
>
> the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is
>
> confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or
>
> have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy,
> distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the
> sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any
>
> attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free.
--
Olévié Ayaovi Agbenyo KOUAMI
Responsable projet CERGI-Education (http://www.cergibs.com)
CEO de INTIC4DEV (http://www.intic4dev.org)
SG de ESTETIC (http://www.estetic.tg)
Membre de ISoc (www.isoc.org <http://www.isoc.org/>) & du FOSSFA (
www.fossfa.net)
ICANN-NPOC Communications Committee Chair (http://www.icann.org/ et
http://www.npoc.org/)
BP : 851 - Tél.: (228) 90 98 86 50 / (228) 98 43 27 72
Skype : olevie1 FB : @olivier.kouami.3 Twitter : #oleviek Lomé - Togo
|
