Provisional election Results
Timothe Litt
litt at ACM.ORG
Wed Oct 19 23:39:27 CEST 2011
Let's not be too hasty (or too light-hearted).
Despite its pseudo-anonymous origin and inappropriate distribution, the
letter does raise legitimate concerns that deserve a fair hearing.
As an individual, I can see the attractiveness of pooling resources for
certain kinds of representation. I can't afford (in dollars or time) to go
flying all over the globe to meetings. I expect other individuals and small
organizations are similarly situated. Especially ones where the issues are
complex and require an appreciation of history and technology that require
years of study to command. And while the outcome may be critical to an
organization's ability to fulfill its mission, the cost of direct
participation may well be prohibitive. So it certainly seems fair to raise
the issue of whether obtaining (and/or paying for) a third-party expert to
represent an organization (or individual, or group of individuals) is
reasonable. And if so, what rules apply to such representatives and the
organizations that sponsor them.
For example: Consider an organization that pays, say, 100 unrelated parties
with minimal interest in DNS to apply for membership and name the
organization's rep as their own. Although this rep may in fact end up
protecting the interests of these parties, it seems clear that the
organization is buying additional votes from parties that would not
participate of their own accord. This seems bad - and is what Avri reported
in her response as a concern that shared representation could be used to
"game" the system.
Is it in fact bad? I don't like the idea of "bought" votes; it smells of
corruption. But suppose there's no payment. Is this then simply recruiting
additional members and providing a mechanism for cost-shared (or free)
representation? Don't we want a broad membership? If the selected
representative does in fact represent the interests of each party, and in
cases of conflict or ambiguity takes direction from those parties, doesn't
everyone benefit?
If a representative breaches his duty to an organization by acting against
its interests, how is that our concern? It clearly is a matter between the
representative and her sponsor - and in the case of an attorney, various
ethics laws apply. But do we want to (do we even have the expertise to)
police the relationship between a representative and his sponsor/employer?
I don't.
On the other hand, the part of our current membership that participates in
discussions (and elections) seems to expect the same level of passion and
commitment from all other members. And, I suspect, would thus expect all
representatives to be direct employees (or principals) of the organization
that they represent. And fully informed and expert on all the issues. As
an individual member, I'm already outvoted by any medium or large
organization that merely by being a member has more votes than I do. I
certainly worry about being further marginalized by some evil organization
that mobilizes hundreds (or thousands) of zombie votes... But the
expectation that all members bring the same passion, commitment and
resources to their participation is unrealistic. And sham/zombie members
that are brought in only to multiply the votes of some member would be an
unacceptable corruption of the process. One has to have some genuine
interest/stake in the organization to be a member.
So there's probably some need for guidance about the expectations we have of
members' participation; how to distinguish legitimate cooperation and
resource pooling from attempts to gain unfair advantage such as zombie
voting. This note is intended to stimulate thought and discussion - it
doesn't cover all the subsidiary issues and considerations that I can think
of. But a reasonable balance should be possible.
It seems to me a good thing that NPOC's interaction with the NCSG-EC has
identified this issue. I don't know what the "right" answer is. But
instead of fighting over process and raising questions about actors'
motivations and character, it would be much more productive to focus on and
discuss the issue. If a set of guidelines/rules can be formulated, the EC
can put them in place, or call a membership vote.
While I think that should be done promptly, my position is that the election
was conducted properly and that the results should be certified as final.
If after giving them a chance, any part of the membership finds that the
current (newly elected) leadership does not act correctly, we have an
appeals process for extreme cases - and there will be more elections as the
initial terms expire.
Let's figure out how to solve problems as one non-commercial constituency -
not devolve into the ugly, destructive internecine political machinations
that many on this list deplore in others...
---------------------------------------------------------
This communication may not represent my employer's views,
if any, on the matters discussed.
_____
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of
Nicolas Adam
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 14:41
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Provisional election Results
And to add to all your concerns (and on a lighter note),
please note that if "NPOC leadership" is successful in getting the right for
the same external (legal) representative to represent many member-orgs in
NCSG, the balance of power would fall squarely into *my* hands:
Debbie's 24 votes + Amber's 44 votes + the 32 already sympathizing, gives
ME the balance of power.
Food for thought ;)
"What are we going to do tomorrow night?
The same thing we do every night, we try to take over the world!"
Nicolas,
PS. I believe I could find many, many persons willing to have me represent
them in NCSG. AND they would answer their emails and confirm that I am still
their chosen representative at random intervals and at a moment's notice
without flinching. You can see that this is past ridiculous and going
nowhere fast. ....
On 19/10/2011 2:07 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Timothe
To add to your concerns, if you check what is supposed to be the NPOC
mailing list, you find that this letter has not been discussed, or even
posted on their membership list.
http://forum.icann.org/lists/npoc-voice/
-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf
Of Timothe Litt
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 11:34 AM
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Provisional election Results
Thanks for providing the results, and for all your efforts in organizing the
election.
I'm certainly disappointed to see the NPOC appeal - and having reviewed the
posted material, am particularly disappointed to see it signed only "NPOC
Leadership". I suppose we can assume that
"NONPROFITICANN at usa.redcross.org" <mailto:NONPROFITICANN at usa.redcross.org>
implies one of the organizations... but it seems rather unprofessional that
"NPOC leadership" didn't sign their names and organizations, nor provide any
data as to how many of the NPOC members (or candidate members) support
these
objections, nor copy their correspondence to this list. I thought that both
transparency and free expression were key values of this group.
While I certainly expect differences of opinion on some policy matters, the
entire non-commercial community is a disadvantaged minority in the ICANN
world with many common issues and concerns that differ from those of the
commercial (and better funded) majorities. Fighting among ourselves and
asking external parties to intervene on one side or another only makes us
appear weaker and less relevant. As Ben Franklin said in 1776, "We must all
hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
I hope that NPOC leadership (whoever it is) and our new leadership will be
able to establish a relationship of mutual respect and trust that enables
the community to advance a common agenda where possible, and where it is
not, to differ non-destructively.
With respect to the issues raised in the appeal: since NPOC and the EC are
at odds, they should be discussed here (and if necessary in a real-time
webmeeting or teleconference). If this does not resolve the issues and
there is sufficient support, the 'appeal to the membership' provisions of
the charter can be invoked. But I'm naïve enough to believe that reasonable
people of good will can sort this out without such a heavyweight process.
Certainly a circular firing squad will only benefit other interests...
---------------------------------------------------------
This communication may not represent my employer's views,
if any, on the matters discussed.
-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf
Of Avri
Doria
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 06:43
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Provisional election Results
To the membership:
[...Snip...]
I must note, that despite having participated in the nomination process,
having submitted statements of candidacy and been listed on the ballot
without prior notice or complaint, the NPOC leadership has filed a complaint
with the ICANN Board and requested that the vote be suspended and new
elections called.
The letter to the Board by the NPOC leadership can be found at:
<http://info.n4c.eu/sympa/arc/ncsg-ec/2011-10/msg00048.html>
<http://info.n4c.eu/sympa/arc/ncsg-ec/2011-10/msg00048.html>
while my response to this complaint can be found at:
<http://info.n4c.eu/sympa/arc/ncsg-ec/2011-10/msg00049.html>
<http://info.n4c.eu/sympa/arc/ncsg-ec/2011-10/msg00049.html>
It is my expectation, and hope, that the ICANN Board will choose not to
interfere in this election.
A copy of this note is filed at:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Elections+2011
Avri Doria
Interim Chair, NCSG
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20111019/cdc0340f/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list