Notes from NCSG-EC Teleconference on 8 November 2011

[David Cake]

On 13/11/2011, at 6:09 AM, Alain Berranger wrote:

> Thks Avri,
> 
> I have no appetite for minority appeal that I cannot hope to win under current membership mindset, sense of entitlement, grand-fathering, numbers and distribution... but NPOC colleagues may decide differently.
> 
> I think we need in general to follow evidence-based membership criteria and follow the same criteria for all. So my 4 arguments remain as far as I am concerned and can be verified by evidence (facts) not opinion, hearsay, bias, etc...
> 

	Absolutely. And if that is the criteria, then if you are not able to establish consensus, then gather further evidence and ask for it to be considered again. 

> Different strokes for different folks? For instance, how can we have NCUC/NCSG individual members working for a law firm or a telecom company? but we do.

	What matters is not their 'day job' - many NCSG members are involved with the domain name system as an individual members, and bring those perspectives to the NCUC, but also have a day job. Being EFA chair doesn't pay me, for example, but I think it is appropriate that I participate in NCUC in that role. Which is why it is important for those of us who take an active part in ICANN to register SOIs etc, recuse ourselves where appropriate, and so on - but if an individual has a strong civil liberties (or other non-commercial) history, and also some business interests in the domain name system, I certainly feel it is still appropriate for them to participate in NCUC if they feel it is the most appropriate way for them to do so. Though of course it is important for NCUC-EC/NCSG-EC to be prepared to revoke membership where they feel the system is being abused by individuals. 

(btw my own most recently submitted SOI Is here http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/application-cake-soi-21sep10-en.pdf) 

> The NPOC membership is clear: all are not-for-profit and only play one side of the street.  
> 

	Which is clear only when we consider the organisations, not the individuals. Some NPOC members are represented only by their pro bono attorneys, attorneys who may also earn their income representing clients with significant commercial interests in DNS. This is a reasonable state of affairs, providing that NPOC participation is focussed on that particular clients interests not other commercial clients of the same firm. Of course, situations like this happen all the time, and there are well known mechanisms to deal with them (such as recusal, SOIs, etc). But it does underline that it is vital to know that attorneys are specifically representing the interests of their clients within ICANN, rather than just happening to have an organisation as a client when that organisation has very limited interest in domain name policy. 

	The nature of individuals being multiply involved via different organisations that interact with the domain name system in different ways. For example, I personally am currently primarily involved in NCUC as the Chair of a non-profit civil liberties group, Electronic Frontiers Australia, but I have in the past been a candidate for board membership of auDA (a ccTLD operator) (beaten in that election by one of our NCSG councillors, Rosemary), done commercial DNS related consulting for clients (not current, but CSG clearly if I was to be representing their interests), and also look at internet issues academically. The ICANN silo system almost guarantees that many individuals will have connections with organisations across multiple silos. Which is why ICANN, not just the NCSG, prefers to think in terms of individual contributions, not organisational. ICANN has enough difficulty working out which internal ICANN hat a given individual is wearing at any given time, let alone having to also work out which external organisational hat. 


> To the risk of repeating myself, national olympic committees are not-for-profits working year in and year out for athletes and not to be confused with the games organizing committees which are for profit (or at least not for loss) once in a blue moon when the country is awarded the games...

	That is a good point. I was not previously aware of the difference. I'm learning a great deal about the Olympics through this process (eg the difference between the treaty of Nairobi and legislation to protect the word mark, differences in various jurisdictions). 

	Cheers
		David

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20111117/77f30014/attachment.html>