<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19154"></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff text=#000000>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=636125719-19102011>Let's not be too hasty (or too
light-hearted).</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=636125719-19102011></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=636125719-19102011>Despite its pseudo-anonymous origin and inappropriate
distribution, the letter does raise legitimate concerns that deserve a fair
hearing. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=636125719-19102011></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=636125719-19102011>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.
</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=636125719-19102011></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=636125719-19102011>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.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=636125719-19102011></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=636125719-19102011>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?</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=636125719-19102011></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=636125719-19102011>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.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=636125719-19102011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>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.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=636125719-19102011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=636125719-19102011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>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.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=636125719-19102011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=636125719-19102011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>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.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=636125719-19102011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=636125719-19102011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>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. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=636125719-19102011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=636125719-19102011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Let's
figure out how to solve problems as one non-commercial constituency - not
devolve into the ugly, destructive internecine political machinations that
many on this list deplore in others...</FONT></SPAN></DIV><!-- Converted from text/plain format --><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial></FONT><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial></FONT><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial></FONT><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial></FONT><BR>
<P><FONT
size=2>---------------------------------------------------------<BR>This
communication may not represent my employer's views,<BR>if any, on the matters
discussed.<BR> </FONT> </P>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial></FONT><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial></FONT><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial></FONT><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial></FONT><BR>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT size=2 face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> NCSG-Discuss
[mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Nicolas
Adam<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, October 19, 2011 14:41<BR><B>To:</B>
NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Provisional
election Results<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>And to add to all your concerns (and on a lighter
note),<BR><BR>please note that if "NPOC leadership" is successful in getting the
right for the same external (legal) representative to represent many member-orgs
in NCSG, the balance of power would fall squarely into *my*
hands:<BR><BR>Debbie's 24 votes + Amber's 44 votes + the 32 already
sympathizing, gives ME the balance of power. <BR><BR>Food for thought
;)<BR><BR>"<SPAN class=st><I><EM>What are we</EM> going to do tomorrow night?
<BR> The same thing <EM>we</EM> do every night, we <EM>try to take over the
world</EM>!</I>"</SPAN><BR><BR><BR>Nicolas, <BR><BR>PS. I believe I could find
many, many persons willing to have me represent them in NCSG. AND they would
answer their emails and confirm that I am still their chosen representative at
random intervals and at a moment's notice without flinching. You can see that
this is past ridiculous and going nowhere fast. ....<BR><BR>On 19/10/2011
2:07 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE
cite=mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2025F7C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu
type="cite"><PRE wrap="">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.
<A class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/npoc-voice/">http://forum.icann.org/lists/npoc-voice/</A>
</PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><PRE wrap="">-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss [<A class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</A>] On Behalf
Of Timothe Litt
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 11:34 AM
To: <A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</A>
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
<A class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E href="mailto:NONPROFITICANN@usa.redcross.org">"NONPROFITICANN@usa.redcross.org"</A>
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 [<A class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</A>] On Behalf
Of Avri
Doria
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 06:43
To: <A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</A>
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:
<A class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E href="http://info.n4c.eu/sympa/arc/ncsg-ec/2011-10/msg00048.html"><http://info.n4c.eu/sympa/arc/ncsg-ec/2011-10/msg00048.html></A>
while my response to this complaint can be found at:
<A class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E href="http://info.n4c.eu/sympa/arc/ncsg-ec/2011-10/msg00049.html"><http://info.n4c.eu/sympa/arc/ncsg-ec/2011-10/msg00049.html></A>
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:
<A class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Elections+2011">https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Elections+2011</A>
Avri Doria
Interim Chair, NCSG
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>