Draft NCSG Charter (v4.0) - answers to your questions

[Milton L Mueller]

Cheryl:

There are a number of issues raised by your post but let me take up the main one first. Are you at all interested in coming to an agreement with other noncommercial organizations in this constituency or not? I don't see any reason why a balanced and reasonable design of the NCSG charter couldn't be agreed upon by all of us. But if we are to come to an agreement you will have to recognize other views, make compromises and come to grips with the fact that yours is the position of one person among many. And if it is not asking too much, you might consider whether your position is in a minority not because NCUC is some evil, cheating conspiracy but simply because you haven't convinced people to follow your way. 

So, when you say

> In my Alternative Charter, I tried to introduce some controls 
> and balances on exactly this problem.  You would not even 
> discuss them.

....I would offer a slightly different and more accurate story. We asked you to propose specific amendments to specific parts of a proposed charter that was agreed by everyone else, and you refused to do so. Instead, you started from scratch with your own draft: in effect, asking the overwhelming majority of people to throw out what they had done entirely and bend to your will. 

Like everyone else involved in NCUC, I am still willing to consider intelligent and reasonable amendments to specific parts of the charter that solve specific problems. I am willing to compromise. Just make proposed amendments in a way that respects the work the rest of us have done. See below for more comments

> You ask:
> "Q2: How does a constituency-based model apportion Council 
> seats among Constituencies when they are of different size?"
> 
> Your proposed charter answers this complex question by 
> imposing a simple majority election for all 6 GNSO council 
> seats for the entire stakeholder group.
> This model is highly 
> unlikely to give voice to differing viewpoints.  The only 
> represented interest is size.

By "size" you mean, "how many members actually support that person." Don't you think there should be a pretty strong relationship between how many noncommercial organizations support a Council candidate and whether that person should serve on the Council? Isn't that what the term "Council representative" means? "representative?" 

But anyway we are not working with a simple majority system. To begin with, there are geographic representation requirements. This means that all candidates are running against others from the same geographic region regardless of their views. Certain regions will be represented even when they get far fewer votes than a duplicate candidate from the same region.

Also, let me point out that in volunteer entities such as this we will be lucky if we can find significantly more than 6 people from 4-5 different regions to run for these positions on a regular basis. I am sure there will be some contested elections, but not all that many. 

> This problem is actually exacerbated with your proposed 
> charter.  Because all council seats are elected on the basis 
> of a mere majority, regardless of representation of the views 
> of different constituencies, the incentive is much greater 
> for constituencies to "pad" their membership list and award 
> greater vote numbers to people and organizations that should 
> not qualify, given the amount of actual participation.  

No. Flat wrong. We are talking about the SG level, not the constituency level. A Stakeholder Group as a whole will be composed of a diverse array of member organizations. It will not be a homogeneous group. So if the "liberals" allow organizations in too easily the "conservatives" will be able to use the same procedures and policies to do the same thing. An integrated SG structure means that membership eligibility will be consistent across all viewpoints. Any group will be able to recruit more members who reflect their views. And to win elections or propose policies, an integrated SG structure encourages people with a strong view to CONVINCE others in the SG to come around to that view. It does not allow them to build their own fortress and be granted votes simply by virtue of the fact that they have created a fortress. There is no duobt in my mind which way is healthier and fairer.

> This has been a consistent issue in NCUC.  I have asked for 
> updated member lists to verify who votes and get no response.
> Some of the organizations listed on the NCUC webpage cannot 
> be found and apparently no longer exist.
> And you have never 
> answered my questions about why the Boulder Colorado 
> publicity organization is listed as a member.  You won't send 
> me a current member list or a list of who voted in an 
> election and how their votes were weighed.  Vastly more votes 
> are cast than the number of persons who post on the list in 
> any given year.

Our member list is public. The Boulder Community Network was listed as a member because it is a nonprofit that joined in 1999 and 2003. Whether it is active now or not, I don't know. We don't give you a list of how people voted because we vote by secret ballot. The Chair doesn't even know who voted -- voting is handled by the election administrator (which has been cgi.br). There is nothing mysterious about the distinction between large and small organizations, read the charter and see for yourself who gets 2 votes and who gets 1. Offhand, Educause, ALA, CPSR, Free Press I know are "large," most others are small. But you know as well as I that these are diversionary tactics. 

> If it is unfair to let one constituency in the non-commercial 
> stakeholder group have some allocation of council seats 
> notwithstanding its smaller size, why wouldn't it be unfair 
> to have a equal representation from a stakeholder group that 
> is smaller than another.  Under your analysis, the only right 
> solution would be to have the all of the GNSO seats allocated 
> according to numbers of participants.  I assume that would 
> mean, at this point, no seats for the non-commercial 
> stakeholders at all.

I can't make any sense at all of this statement.

> We do know how a constituency model will work.  That has been 
> the model used in the GNSO for years.

I am afraid you are fundamentally misinformed about what is underway now. Because of the failure of the old GNSO model, huge structural changes in the GNSO are mandated by the Board. We will have a bicameral structure in which Council seats are assigned to stakeholder groups, not constituency structures. 

You and other advocates of new constituencies seem to be completely unaware of how the GNSO will work in the future. Policies will be made by Working Groups, not the Council, the Council will only charter WGs. Anyone, regardless of what constituency they are in or even whether they are part of GNSO, will be able to participate in the WGs. A policy that doesn't obtain "consensus" in a WG will not even get to a Council vote. And I don't think the Council will be in a position to stop a policy that has strong consensus in a WG. The action is in the WGs, not the Council. So don't get so fixated on constituency structures and the Council. You're missing the boat.