Thks David! very useful for a newbie! Cheers, Alain On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:25 PM, David Cake <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > On 13/11/2011, at 6:09 AM, Alain Berranger wrote: > > Thks Avri, > > I have no appetite for minority appeal that I cannot hope to win under > current membership mindset, sense of entitlement, grand-fathering, numbers > and distribution... but NPOC colleagues may decide differently. > > I think we need in general to follow evidence-based membership criteria > and follow the same criteria for all. So my 4 arguments remain as far as I > am concerned and can be verified by evidence (facts) not opinion, hearsay, > bias, etc... > > > Absolutely. And if that is the criteria, then if you are not able to > establish consensus, then gather further evidence and ask for it to be > considered again. > > Different strokes for different folks? For instance, how can we have > NCUC/NCSG individual members working for a law firm or a telecom company? > but we do. > > > What matters is not their 'day job' - many NCSG members are involved with > the domain name system as an individual members, and bring those > perspectives to the NCUC, but also have a day job. Being EFA chair doesn't > pay me, for example, but I think it is appropriate that I participate in > NCUC in that role. Which is why it is important for those of us who take an > active part in ICANN to register SOIs etc, recuse ourselves where > appropriate, and so on - but if an individual has a strong civil liberties > (or other non-commercial) history, and also some business interests in the > domain name system, I certainly feel it is still appropriate for them to > participate in NCUC if they feel it is the most appropriate way for them to > do so. Though of course it is important for NCUC-EC/NCSG-EC to be prepared > to revoke membership where they feel the system is being abused by > individuals. > > (btw my own most recently submitted SOI Is here > http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/application-cake-soi-21sep10-en.pdf > ) > > The NPOC membership is clear: all are not-for-profit and only play one > side of the street. > > > Which is clear only when we consider the organisations, not the > individuals. Some NPOC members are represented only by their pro bono > attorneys, attorneys who may also earn their income representing clients > with significant commercial interests in DNS. This is a reasonable state of > affairs, providing that NPOC participation is focussed on that particular > clients interests not other commercial clients of the same firm. Of course, > situations like this happen all the time, and there are well known > mechanisms to deal with them (such as recusal, SOIs, etc). But it does > underline that it is vital to know that attorneys are specifically > representing the interests of their clients within ICANN, rather than just > happening to have an organisation as a client when that organisation has > very limited interest in domain name policy. > > The nature of individuals being multiply involved via different > organisations that interact with the domain name system in different ways. > For example, I personally am currently primarily involved in NCUC as the > Chair of a non-profit civil liberties group, Electronic Frontiers > Australia, but I have in the past been a candidate for board membership of > auDA (a ccTLD operator) (beaten in that election by one of our NCSG > councillors, Rosemary), done commercial DNS related consulting for clients > (not current, but CSG clearly if I was to be representing their interests), > and also look at internet issues academically. The ICANN silo system almost > guarantees that many individuals will have connections with organisations > across multiple silos. Which is why ICANN, not just the NCSG, prefers to > think in terms of individual contributions, not organisational. ICANN has > enough difficulty working out which internal ICANN hat a given individual > is wearing at any given time, let alone having to also work out which > external organisational hat. > > > To the risk of repeating myself, national olympic committees are > not-for-profits working year in and year out for athletes and not to be > confused with the games organizing committees which are for profit (or at > least not for loss) once in a blue moon when the country is awarded the > games... > > > That is a good point. I was not previously aware of the difference. I'm > learning a great deal about the Olympics through this process (eg the > difference between the treaty of Nairobi and legislation to protect the > word mark, differences in various jurisdictions). > > Cheers > David > > -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org interim Vice Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger