Reminder: Members review of Draft Proposed NCSG Charter

[Milton L Mueller]

Andrew
In my opinion boundary-spanning organizations don't pose much of a problem in the current setup. They just have to choose which SG they want to be part of. The only problem comes when an organization wants to play both sides of the fence: i.e., get double representation by being an active member in two SGs. That leads to conflicts of interests and risks leading to membership "raid" on one SG by another SG. So, for example, an individual lawyer who runs a law practice could be (and often is) eligible for the Commercial SG, but if they do lots of works for nonprofits they might want to join the NCSG. Either way is possible, but not both. 

Note that this problem becomes orders of magnitude worse when you start dividing up the NCSG into "constituencies" that have specific representational and voting powers. Then you have to decide, "am I a "consumer" advocate or a "privacy" advocate or a "free speech" advocate or a "developing country" advocate - when you may be all at once. In a silo constituency structure, either you get double representation or you are forced to make an arbitrary choice, and neither option is good.

So I think the current approach, in which we are liberal in our interpretation of who or what is eligible for NCSG but then strictly prohibit membership in another SG for the same person or organization, is the right one. 

I don't like the idea of "observer status" because a person or organization that is very active and vocal can dominate discussions whether or not they are a member, and crowd out the voice of others.

The four new SG categories provide a home for almost anyone on the user / noncontracting party side. (On the contracting party side there are still some problems, e.g., prospective registries) 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC-
> DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 11:50 PM
> To: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Reminder: Members review of Draft Proposed
> NCSG Charter
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for the review and the issue.
> 
> I am not sure how it would be best to handle this as there are two
> conflicting ways of looking at:
> 
> - an organization should not be represented twice in ICANN and certainly
> should not have two representations in the GNSO.
> 
> - on the other hand some organizations are stakeholders in several
> categories at once.
> 
> In discussions during the restructuring, there was some discussion on
> this topic, and if I remember correctly one thought was that an
> organization could be an observer in more then SG group or SO, but had
> to be a member in only one.  I do not think this was formalized.  It
> certainly is not represented in this charter.  One idea would be to add
> something like:
> 
> An organization which is a member of another GNSO Stakeholder Group or
> Supporting Organization may request Observer status in the NCSG.  Such a
> request would be acted on by the Executive Committee. An observer in the
> NCSG could participate in discussions and in Interest-Groups, but would
> not have a vote or any other decision making participation and its
> members could not serve in NCSG leadership positions unless they became
> Individual members under the criteria described in section 2.2.5.
> 
> Opinions?
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> On 30 Apr 2010, at 22:51, Andrew A. Adams wrote:
> 
> >
> > Avri,
> >
> > Thanks for the reminder to read this through. Under section 2.2.2
> Ineligible
> > organizations, I have a concern.
> >
> > 2.2.2. Ineligible organizations.
> > ...
> > 3. Organizations that ..., or are represented in ICANN through another
> > Supporting Organization;
> > ...
> >
> > I'm concerned about the overlap cases betweeen NCSG and other groups.
> While
> > these groups should be relatively distinct, there will always be
> boundary
> > cases of organizations who could be deemed to fall within the remit of
> two
> > groups. While being a member of two groups should not be allowed, I do
> think
> > there is a potential difficulty where a group falls between two SGs
> and
> > neither is willing to accept them because of such rules. Could some
> "weasel
> > wording" help here to indicate that organizations need to select the
> "most
> > appropriate" SG to represent their interests, should they be eligible
> for
> > membership of multiple SGs. There's also the issue of NCSG possibly
> being
> > whittled away by other SGs (who may have less firm charter membership
> rules)
> > gradually subsuming edge areas of NCSG.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Profesor Andrew A Adams       aaa at meiji.ac.jp
> > Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and
> > Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
> > Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan
> >
> >