As an individual, I can see the attractiveness of pooling resources for certain kinds of representation. I can't afford (in dollars or time) to go flying all over the globe to meetings. I expect other individuals and small organizations are similarly situated. Especially ones where the issues are complex and require an appreciation of history and technology that require years of study to command. And while the outcome may be critical to an organization's ability to fulfill its mission, the cost of direct participation may well be prohibitive. So it certainly seems fair to raise the issue of whether obtaining (and/or paying for) a third-party expert to represent an organization (or individual, or group of individuals) is reasonable. And if so, what rules apply to such representatives and the organizations that sponsor them.

For example: Consider an organization that pays, say, 100 unrelated parties with minimal interest in DNS to apply for membership and name the organization's rep as their own. Although this rep may in fact end up protecting the interests of these parties, it seems clear that the organization is buying additional votes from parties that would not participate of their own accord. This seems bad - and is what Avri reported in her response as a concern that shared representation could be used to "game" the system.

Is it in fact bad? I don't like the idea of "bought" votes; it smells of corruption. But suppose there's no payment. Is this then simply recruiting additional members and providing a mechanism for cost-shared (or free) representation? Don't we want a broad membership? If the selected representative does in fact represent the interests of each party, and in cases of conflict or ambiguity takes direction from those parties, doesn't everyone benefit?

If a representative breaches his duty to an organization by acting against its interests, how is that our concern? It clearly is a matter between the representative and her sponsor - and in the case of an attorney, various ethics laws apply. But do we want to (do we even have the expertise to) police the relationship between a representative and his sponsor/employer? I don't.

On the other hand, the part of our current membership that participates in discussions (and elections) seems to expect the same level of passion and commitment from all other members. And, I suspect, would thus expect all representatives to be direct employees (or principals) of the organization that they represent. And fully informed and expert on all the issues. As an individual member, I'm already outvoted by any medium or large organization that merely by being a member has more votes than I do. I certainly worry about being further marginalized by some evil organization that mobilizes hundreds (or thousands) of zombie votes... But the expectation that all members bring the same passion, commitment and resources to their participation is unrealistic. And sham/zombie members that are brought in only to multiply the votes of some member would be an unacceptable corruption of the process. One has to have some genuine interest/stake in the organization to be a member.

So there's probably some need for guidance about the expectations we have of members' participation; how to distinguish legitimate cooperation and resource pooling from attempts to gain unfair advantage such as zombie voting. This note is intended to stimulate thought and discussion - it doesn't cover all the subsidiary issues and considerations that I can think of. But a reasonable balance should be possible.

It seems to me a good thing that NPOC's interaction with the NCSG-EC has identified this issue. I don't know what the "right" answer is. But instead of fighting over process and raising questions about actors' motivations and character, it would be much more productive to focus on and discuss the issue. If a set of guidelines/rules can be formulated, the EC can put them in place, or call a membership vote.

While I think that should be done promptly, my position is that the election was conducted properly and that the results should be certified as final. If after giving them a chance, any part of the membership finds that the current (newly elected) leadership does not act correctly, we have an appeals process for extreme cases - and there will be more elections as the initial terms expire.

---------------------------------------------------------
This communication may not represent my employer's views,
if any, on the matters discussed.

From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nicolas Adam
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 14:41
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Provisional election Results

Timothe To add to your concerns, if you check what is supposed to be the NPOC mailing list, you find that this letter has not been discussed, or even posted on their membership list. http://forum.icann.org/lists/npoc-voice/

-----Original Message----- From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Timothe Litt Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 11:34 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Provisional election Results Thanks for providing the results, and for all your efforts in organizing the election. I'm certainly disappointed to see the NPOC appeal - and having reviewed the posted material, am particularly disappointed to see it signed only "NPOC Leadership". I suppose we can assume that "[log in to unmask]" implies one of the organizations... but it seems rather unprofessional that "NPOC leadership" didn't sign their names and organizations, nor provide any data as to how many of the NPOC members (or candidate members) support these objections, nor copy their correspondence to this list. I thought that both transparency and free expression were key values of this group. While I certainly expect differences of opinion on some policy matters, the entire non-commercial community is a disadvantaged minority in the ICANN world with many common issues and concerns that differ from those of the commercial (and better funded) majorities. Fighting among ourselves and asking external parties to intervene on one side or another only makes us appear weaker and less relevant. As Ben Franklin said in 1776, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." I hope that NPOC leadership (whoever it is) and our new leadership will be able to establish a relationship of mutual respect and trust that enables the community to advance a common agenda where possible, and where it is not, to differ non-destructively. With respect to the issues raised in the appeal: since NPOC and the EC are at odds, they should be discussed here (and if necessary in a real-time webmeeting or teleconference). If this does not resolve the issues and there is sufficient support, the 'appeal to the membership' provisions of the charter can be invoked. But I'm naïve enough to believe that reasonable people of good will can sort this out without such a heavyweight process. Certainly a circular firing squad will only benefit other interests... --------------------------------------------------------- This communication may not represent my employer's views, if any, on the matters discussed. -----Original Message----- From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 06:43 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Provisional election Results To the membership: [...Snip...] I must note, that despite having participated in the nomination process, having submitted statements of candidacy and been listed on the ballot without prior notice or complaint, the NPOC leadership has filed a complaint with the ICANN Board and requested that the vote be suspended and new elections called. The letter to the Board by the NPOC leadership can be found at: <http://info.n4c.eu/sympa/arc/ncsg-ec/2011-10/msg00048.html> while my response to this complaint can be found at: <http://info.n4c.eu/sympa/arc/ncsg-ec/2011-10/msg00049.html> It is my expectation, and hope, that the ICANN Board will choose not to interfere in this election. A copy of this note is filed at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Elections+2011 Avri Doria Interim Chair, NCSG