Questions Re: Proposed new NCSG structure

[Cheryl Preston]

Dear all:

I do have some questions about Milton's proposed structure.  Could
someone clarify?

Do you presume that all members of the new constituencies must also join
another organization, the NCSG or something else?  The proposal states:
"Individuals and representatives of organizations join NCSG directly."
Who decides on elibility?  Milton has turned down an organization
application to NCUC because the .org domain name was purchased by a
corporation and, thus -- supposedly -- commercial, even though the
purpose and work of the organization is entirely with respect to
non-commercial Internet users.  When asked for further clarification on
the denial, none was forthcoming.  Whatever eligibility criteria that is
used by an organization such as the grande "NCSG", other than the
constituency itself, must be totally transparent, with clear stated
rules, and then full discussion/explanation about the basis of the
decision, and finally a method for appeal.  The existing criteria is not
sufficient.

Is the NCSG just the organization of the particular constituencies?
Were you thinking that all membership voting would be NCSG-wide, like
the current NCUC is?  If so, then the existing NCUC control group would
still control as NCUC as a constituency would claim more membership and
more "large" organizations than new constituencies.  Can you tell me the
criteria for "large" and "small" organizations?  I assume for a new
constituency to make any difference in the existing stakeholder
representation, it would need to out-vote the NCUC constituency
(whatever the new version is called).

Thus, the way it reads to me, a constituency whose interest were
Internet safety, for instance, could have 5 very legitimate members, but
unless all 5 are large organizations by the criteria, they will be
out-voted every time -- in fact even if all 5 are large organizations
they will be outvoted.

How do we verify membership in constituencies other than an email
response?  Does this mean that if a constituency can get individuals and
organizations to sign up, they do not have to be involved in any way in
reviewing issues, discussion, in-put, or even understanding what the
constituency is doing in their "name"?  There are many, many members of
NCUC I have never seen at a meeting or active on the email listserve.
There are some that are the same organization, but in different
countries, yet only the rep from one country is ever involved.  NCUC
could hardly get 20 (21?) votes last year for the elections last year.
But there are twice that many on the list on the webpage.

So, with cumulative voting (if that what you mean), it would take
perhaps 8 new constituencies of 5 members each (with approximately the
same mix of large and small organizations and individuals as in the
existing NCUC group), to outvote the NCUC group.

The proposal does say that each constituency does get a representative
on the EC.  Are you presuming that the EC of the NCSG would function as
has the EC of the current NCUC, where they basically make all the
decisions without input from constituency membership by votes or review?
 If so, then, the votes of the EC would be balanced, one for each
constituency.  Right?  In which case, what is the point of the vote
differential for size of organization other than to elect the EC
representative within each constituency?  Why couldn't each constituency
decide how to allocate the votes within their own constituency, in terms
of individuals and organizations?

I never saw a response to Danny Younger's complaint that the voting
scheme meant that NCUC would still outvote everyone in the proposed
structure.

What am I missing?


Cheryl B. Preston
Edwin M. Thomas
Professor of Law
J. Reuben Clark Law School
Brigham Young University
424 JRCB
Provo, UT  84602
(801) 422-2312
prestonc at lawgate.byu.edu
>>> Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG> 10/11/08 9:17 AM >>>
Hi Milton,

Thanks for posting this.  It looks like a solid direction for us to
head in to manage thiconstituency within the new stake-holder group?

Thanks much,
Robin


On Oct 9, 2008, at 1:13 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> Hello, all
> Important news about the GNSO Improvements. First, we have no
> official notice yet but the Board has voted to delay the full
> implementation of the Improvements by 3-4 months. This is supposed
> to have happened at the Sept 30 meeting, but we have no description
> of what they decided yet so cannot provide details.
>
> This has implications for our GNSO Council seat elections. It would
> mean that there would be 2 open Council positions instead of 5,
> although one ICANN staff has suggested that we go ahead and elect
> all 5 and keep them “in reserve” (don’t shoot the messenger, I am
> just relaying what I know).
>
> More important, we need to start thinking about the new structure
> for the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG). Below is a sketch
> of what I think would work. Please let us know what you think.
>
>
> NCSG structure sketch
>
> Membership
> Eligibility criteria same as before, except we allow individuals
> according to current provisional regime
> Individuals and representatives of organizations join NCSG directly
>             Social networking site for interactions and records
>             NCUC discuss list retained (but renamed) as NCSG
> discuss list
> 3 categories of membership:
>             Large organization – 4 votes
>             Small organization – 2 votes
>             Individuals – 1 vote
> No membership dues, but renewal required bi-annually
> Chair and GNSO Council reps elected by NCSG members
>
> Officers
> Chair – same duties as NCUC chair
> 6 GNSO Council representatives elected by NCSG
> Executive Committee (EC)
> Consists of Chair, 1 delegate from each constituency, Council
> representatives
>             Constituencies represented by their own chair/delegate
>
> Constituencies
> Constituencies are self-defined groups organized around some
> distinctive policy perspective (e.g. consumer protection, privacy);
> shared identity (e.g., region or country of origin, gender,
> language group); a type of organization (e.g., research networks,
> philanthropic foundations) or any other grouping principle that
> might affect its stance on gtld policy.
> Each constituency sets its own eligibility criteria
> Constituencies have a right to:
> x    Place one rep on the executive committee
> x    Delegate members to working groups
> x    Issue statements on PDPs which are included in the official
> NCSG response, but marked as constituency positions, not
> necessarily the position of NCSG as a whole
>
> To be recognized as a constituency a group must be supported by at
> least 5 people who are already NCSG members, appoint an organizer
> (chair) and submit a charter. Steps:
> 1)      A prospective constituency organizer issues a notification
> of intent to form a constituency to the entire NCSG via its email list
> 2)      When 5 or more NCSG members volunteer to join the NCSG on
> the public list it becomes eligible to schedule a meeting (which
> can be either in person or online)
> 3)      The eligible constituency holds a meeting(s) to draft a
> charter. The charter defines its grouping principle, eligibility
> criteria, and procedures. The meetings also designate a
> constituency chair, and other officers if so desired.
> 4)      The charter is submitted to the NCSG EC for ratification.
> Ratification is based exclusively on due diligence whether there
> are really at least 5 members, whether the constituency’s
> eligibility rules or procedures contravene NCSG charter in some way
>
> Current members of NCUC are automatically made members of NCSG, but
> NCUC dissolves as a constituency once this proposal is adopted.
>
> NCSG members can join any constituency, provided that they meet the
> constituency’s own eligibility criteria.
> Should we allow constituencies to exclude based on crite> Should we allow members to join more than one constituency? I
> propose yes, as long as voting for council seats and chair is NCSG-
> wide.
>
> Constituencies keep track of their own membership, but members
> should reflect their status on the official NCSG social network
> site. Status is reviewed by the EC bi-annually to see if they still
> exceed the 5-member threshold.
>
>




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org