Proposed amendments to Milton's structural outline

[Cheryl Preston]

Robin — Look, I don't care about the Church of Reality.  There are a
number of organizations on your blog for which I can't find the webpages
any longer or or any evidence that the "organization" is in knowing
involvement at all. (How many employees, etc., do you count from the
Boulder County Association? Which state ACLU is a member?  I understand
the national organization is only advisory to the states and takes no
action on its own.)  Sending me an updated member list and the actual
active emails on the listserve would be helpful. Please.

What annoyed me was when I asked for details about the problem on
Ralph's organization and the comparison to the Church, I received NO
response.  When I get a response from Milton yesterday, it included the
strangest reference to what I assume he intends a slur — the religious
right. And, it bothered me that Ralph was not even asked for additional
information.

The bottom line is this — a very few people are actually making
decisions, reading and approving the particular stances taken by NCUC.
There is a struggle to even find a body to fill offices, and some of
them make no show of participation (or aren't yet even voting members).
If you propose running the new NCSG on a mere majority vote of the
whole, then the identity and involvement of all members is in question.
Although you believe there are clear standards, I would like them
articulated as they are not apparent in application.  And sending an
email from the organization's email system twice a year does not seem to
be "participation."

I suggest the plan also be amended to allow for cumulative voting for
council representatives, and for votes on the EC in appropriate cases.
Each person or organization entitled to vote should be given 6 votes for
council representatives (6 times whatever their vote weight allotment).
These votes can be allocated as the voter chooses.  A voter could decide
to cast all 6 votes for a single candidate, for instance.  This kind of
voting has long been in practice in corporations for shareholder and
board votes.  The Wikipedia simple explanation is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulative_voting; the Security and
Exchange Commission's simple explanation is here:
http://www.sec.gov/answers/cumulativevote.htm.

The structure Milton proposes is, in practice, no different than the
current NCUC arrangement unless participation is vastly expanded.  I
don't see any proposal to seek out participation, and the treatment I
have received, particularly in person, helps explain why anyone with
different values than Milton, you and those few actually involved, have
given up.

Thus, I propose three amendments at this point (although I object to
many other elements of the plan, AT LEAST these three should be
considered by the whole of the members).

1. Clearer statement of what is the criteria for a small organization.
If a $30 California non-profit designation is enough, should they be
allowed multiple votes?
2. Clearer standards for evidence of participation, especially by
organizations of more than one person.  The board or other officers of
the organization should be clearly aware of the question and NCUC
response on important issues, at a minimum.  A single employee on the
mailing list who may send an email bleep twice a year does not deserve
the voting power for a large organization whose purposes have noting to
do with Internet policy (such as the Boulder County Association, for
instance).
3. All en masse votes for multiple positions, especially council
members, must be cumulative.

I would like these proposals taken seriously, please.  Please respond.


Cheryl B. Preston
Edwin M. Thomas
Professor of Law
J. Reuben Clark Law School
Brigham Young University
434 JRCB
Provo, UT 84602
(801) 422-2312
prestonc at lawgate.byu.edu

>>> Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> 10/14/2008 10:16 am >>>
Cheryl,

You need to get a grip.    Your pal's "coming-soon" blog owned by a
for-profit company is not an organization.   Trying to complain about

others who are recognized 501(c)(3) organizations does not get you
where you want to go.

NCUC has lots of members who are not 501(c)(3) organizations - it is
not the only way to be an non-commercial organization.  But when the
federal government has determined that an organization is non-
commercial, that is pretty good evidence.   Or, if any state has
awarded an organization a nonprofit status, that is good evidence
that the organization is indeed non-commercial.

Neither is required, but either would be evidence that a neutral body

(the govt) has made a determination based on filings (financial
disclosures, a board of directors, or an agent for service of
process, etc.) that this isn't just a single person trying to scam
the constituency.

This isn't rock science and the bar is not high: you just have to
actually be a non-commercial organization.  Your friend was unwilling

to submit an iota of evidence that he was a noncommercial
organization.   So he can join as an individual.  Or he can go to the

trouble of creating an organization and re-apply as an organization.

A non-profit corporation can be created in a day in California by
filing a $30 fee.  Not rocket science - just a trail of
accountability.

The church whose membership you question has their 501(c)(3) award
letter posted to the website.  I'll leave your Lois-Lerner-conspiracy-

theory issues to you to solve.

Robin



On Oct 13, 2008, at 6:39 PM, Cheryl Preston wrote:

> I might also note that, when I searched the IRS list of qualified
> non-profits, Church of Reality (the addressee of the IRS letter on
> the webpage), Church of the Real, and any other derivative of the
> name (other than 3 other churches that are unrelated) does not show

> up as a 501(c)(3) organization or any other kind of tax-exempt
> organization.  Further the employer identification number in the
> letter pictured on the church webpage does not show up as belonging

> to any kind of IRS qualified organization.  (And as a side note, I
> understand Lois Lerner wasn't made director of the IRS exempt
> organizations division until Dec. 22, 2005, and the letter on the
> webpage, signed "for" her in that capacity is stamped Oct. 20,
> 2005.)  Moreover, I couldn't find the Church of Reality on the
> lists of California non-profits that I accessed.  I didn't have
> time for further tracing.  But are you sure it is a 501(c)(3) or
> current California nonprofit?
>
> Are IRS qualification and state registered non-profit the criteria
> or is it non-religious right?
>
> Could you also clarify how you determine legitimacy for a non-US
> non-profit?
>
>
> Cheryl B. Preston
> Edwin M. Thomas
> Professor of Law
> J. Reuben Clark Law School
> Brigham Young University
> 434 JRCB
> Provo, UT 84602
> (801) 422-2312
> prestonc at lawgate.byu.edu
>
>>>> Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> 10/13/2008 4:01 pm >>>
> Cheryl,
>
> Anyone who wants to join the constituency can do it as an
individual,
> but you have to be a legitimate organization for membership as an
> "organization".
>
> As I recall, there were a few basic things about your friend's blog
> that made it obvious he was not a legitimate non-commercial
> organization.   These factors are not alone determinative: He never
> set-up any non-profit corporation (or other legal entity) organized
> by the laws of any state.  There was no board of directors.  The
> website was registered to a for-profit corporation.
>
> On the other hand, the church (who's membership you disapprove of)
is
> a recognized non-profit corporation recognized (for at least 5
years)
> by the state of California and is an IRS-approved 501(c)(3) not-for-
> profit charity with a board of directors.  It is an established
legal
> entity that has been awarded federal tax-exempt status.
>
> Your pal's "coming soon-ish" blog did not meet objective criteria
> that it was in fact an organization.
>
> No matter how you cut the mustard, you are going to have to convince
> the entire group to go along with your ideas if you wish them
adopted
> as a group position.
>
> Robin
>
>
>
> On Oct 13, 2008, at 2:27 PM, Cheryl Preston wrote:
>
>> You said:
>>
>> "Some guy who runs a business and funds
>> religious right groups threw up a web site on some free blog area,
>> called it a "foundation" and claimed that it was a noncommercial
org.
>> There was no evidence that anyone but him was involved, there was
no
>> evidence that this organization existed. We told him he could join
>> as an
>> individual, though, which he didn't bother to do. Rather obviously
an
>> attempt to stack the deck. That's why we need some kind of review
of
>> membership eligibility."
>>
>> Please respond:
>>
>> Does being a CEO of a business preclude an organization of which
>> one is director from eligibility?
>> Exactly which "religious right groups" do you believe he "funds"?
>> How do you define "religious right groups" anyway?  Does that
>> include BYU?
>> Are "religious left groups" disapproved of as well?
>> I asked earlier how you distinguished the Church that you admitted
>> this summer, for whom the Internet is a sacred shrine.  I received
>> no answer.  As I asked then, How many members does it have?  Is it
>> involved in any other activities?
>> If Ralph "funds" varrious "religious right groups," would those all
>> be disqualified as well?  If not, why is a foundation to which he
>> contributes funds for support of families on the Internet
>> disqualified?
>> The director of this foundation could certainly have joined as an
>> individual, but your response made it clear that your constituency
>> was not unbiased.  Rather than pay the $50 to join NCUC, I suppose
>> he is waiting for the new structure and a new constituency.
>> If what you want is evidence of how many or who all is involved in
>> the foundation, why didn't you say so?  He could send you a list.
>> Or do you want a list of activities the foundation has sponsored?
>> What makes something "rather obvious" to you is not set forth in
>> the existing rules.  As these questions illustrate, it is unclear,
>> even from the above statement, what is the criteria after all.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>>>> Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU> 10/13/08 3:02 PM >>>
>> Cheryl:
>>
>>> 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."
>>
>> You join the NCSG first, directly, and form a constituency second.

>> You
>> cannot form a NCSG constituency without being a member of NCSG.
>> That is
>> clear I think from the proposal.
>>
>>> Who decides on elibility?
>>
>> The basic eligibility criteria for organizations are stated in the
>> NCUC
>> charter; the criteria for individuals are stated in the application
>> form
>> for individuals on the www.ncdnhc.org web site. Currently those
>> criteria
>> are applied by the Executive Committee (not by me individually, as

>> you
>> wrongly supposed). This has been a somewhat slow process even with
>> only
>> 5 EC members, and Kim Heitman's concerns about scalability as we
>> add new
>> constituencies become even more pertinent here. I would suggest
>> that the
>> Chair make a decision, communicate it to the EC and if X number of
EC
>> members objects it can go to a vote, or an appeal to the whole
>> membership, whatever.
>>
>>> 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
>>
>> Whoa. The Executive Committee turned it down, not me. To be more
>> precise, this application received NOT ONE vote from among the 6
>> people
>> involved. The reason is simple. Some guy who runs a business and
>> funds
>> religious right groups threw up a web site on some free blog area,
>> called it a "foundation" and claimed that it was a noncommercial
org.
>> There was no evidence that anyone but him was involved, there was
no
>> evidence that this organization existed. We told him he could join
>> as an
>> individual, though, which he didn't bother to do. Rather obviously
an
>> attempt to stack the deck. That's why we need some kind of review
of
>> membership eligibility.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> All of these things exist now. In any rational review and appeal
>> process, that application will fail. It was a fake, pure and
simple.
>>
>>> Were you thinking that all membership voting would be NCSG-wide,
>>> like
>>> the current NCUC is?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> NCUC dissolves as a constituency as this plan is implemented.
>> There is
>> no "control group."
>>
>> Here is the another way of stating what you seem to be complaining
>> about: if you want to influence NCSG policy positions and elect
>> officers, then you will have to be able to persuade more than 5
>> people.
>> Yep.
>>
>>>  Can you tell me the
>>> criteria for "large" and "small" organizations?
>>
>> It is in the current NCUC charter.
>>
>>> 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).
>>
>> There will be no NCUC constituency once this plan is enacted. But
>> if you
>> mean, again, that a new constituency will have to persuade other
>> constituencies/ NCSG members to win elections, then yes,
absolutely.
>> That is the way it should be. The mere act of forming a
constituency
>> does not guarantee 5 people absolute power over a group of 50-100
>> people, nor should it.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> They will be outvoted only if they cannot convince other people to
go
>> along with their views.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Again, there is no "NCUC group" in the new plan. Second, voting
>> occurs
>> only for NCSG officers and GNSO Council members. Whoever expects
>> to be
>> elected for those positions had better be supported by most of the
>> NCSG
>> people. Third, constituencies, no matter how small, can put people
on
>> Working Groups, which is where the policy "action" is in the new
>> GNSO.
>> And they can file their position papers along with all the others.
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> The EC will have mostly administrative, not policy making powers.
>> Whether it is administration or policy, however, it is not
>> feasible to
>> have every minor decision require a membership vote. We elect
>> people to
>> make these decisions, and if we don't like the decisions they make
we
>> throw them out of office next time. No one wants to be involved in
>> every
>> single act of the NCSG, and anyone insane enough to attempt it will
>> discover that no one participates in those votes and that they will
>> spend all of their time running such votes rather than doing the
real
>> work.
>>
>>> the votes of the EC would be balanced, one for each
>>> constituency.  Right?
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> The vote differential applies when we have NCSG-wide elections for
>> Chair, and GNSO Council.
>>
>>>  Why couldn't each constituency
>>> decide how to allocate the votes within their own constituency, in
>> terms
>>> of individuals and organizations?
>>
>> They can do that, when it comes to picking their own
>> representative to
>> the EC
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>




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