<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I agree that the situation is more complex than I've let it shown.
You've convinced me that this may be legitimate or valuable to look
at. And I apologize to all for implying as a matter of fact
something that could be contested.<br>
<br>
On the merit: <br>
<br>
I'm not sure having representation adds something meaningful that is
not immediately counterbalanced by an equal loss. Just raising the
issue I juggle with the most for the sake of progressing on the
merit:<br>
<br>
It might bring more political participants but it does so at the
price, precisely, of their political involvement. That, I think, is
problematic. <br>
<br>
I know that analogies are tricky creatures, so I don't use this next
one to close a point; I bring it only for us to use, if it is
useful. <br>
<br>
The analogy is most real-lived political/electoral systems. We don't
mandate people to express our political rights in elections. We
might do it to lobby our interest. Or to negotiate. We do it to
discuss business. We don't do it to express our views on income
taxes. Nor on war. Although we might do it, again, to lobby. We, of
course, as a result of elections, use representatives. But it might
not be most appropriate to use it beforehand. Although we have
parties, they are not representatives...<br>
<br>
Since one of the most important task of NCSG's membership is to
express itself in votes, I'm not sure it is great to enable
representation <i>at that level</i>, even if it is true that it
helps solve some information and resource asymmetry problems.<br>
<br>
<br>
##############<br>
<br>
In the spirit of thinking this over, here is a list of
points-issues, the settling of the details of which could be part of
a balance framework for enabling resource pooling with regard
representation. This is mostly based on the issues you raise.
Addition, substraction, commentaries and ideas are welcome.
Discussion on the merit of this might precede engagement with these
points, or it might proceed along with it. <br>
<br>
<br>
-- The limit to the number of votes one representative could have. <br>
<br>
-- The class of party that could delegate/mandate an external
representative<br>
<br>
-- The obligation(s) that such a mandatary (or agent? or
representative?) should have towards its mandators (or principal? or
represented?). <br>
<br>
-- The monetary treatment acceptable<br>
<br>
-- Safeguards to insure that the represented has and retains an
interest; is and remains eligible<br>
<br>
Nicolas<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/19/2011 5:39 PM, Timothe Litt wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:2513374F7C8049C48B730EBAAE524455@sb.litts.net"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19154">
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"
size="2"><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" face="Arial"
size="2"><span class="636125719-19102011"></span></font> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"
size="2"><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" face="Arial"
size="2"><span class="636125719-19102011"></span></font> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"
size="2"><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" face="Arial"
size="2"><span class="636125719-19102011"></span></font> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"
size="2"><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" face="Arial"
size="2"><span class="636125719-19102011"></span></font> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"
size="2"><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" face="Arial"
size="2"><span class="636125719-19102011"></span></font> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"
size="2"><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> </div>
<div><span class="636125719-19102011"><font color="#0000ff"
face="Arial" size="2">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"></span> </div>
<div><span class="636125719-19102011"><font color="#0000ff"
face="Arial" size="2">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"></span> </div>
<div><span class="636125719-19102011"><font color="#0000ff"
face="Arial" size="2">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"></span> </div>
<div><span class="636125719-19102011"><font color="#0000ff"
face="Arial" size="2">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"></span> </div>
<div><span class="636125719-19102011"><font color="#0000ff"
face="Arial" size="2">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 --><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> </div>
<br>
<div dir="ltr" class="OutlookMessageHeader" align="left"
lang="en-us">
<hr tabindex="-1"> <font face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b>
NCSG-Discuss [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Nicolas Adam<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, October 19, 2011 14:41<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Provisional election
Results<br>
</font><br>
</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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>