Notes from NCSG-EC Teleconference on 8 November 2011

[Alain Berranger]

Thks David! very useful for a newbie!

Cheers, Alain

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:25 PM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:

>
> 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
>
>


--
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
Member, Board of Directors, CECI,
http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca
NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
interim Vice Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
Skype: alain.berranger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20111119/afadc7c9/attachment-0001.html>