[npoc-voice] RE: New member admission process and member databases

[Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@xxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

I am speaking as an individual representative of ASCD on this string and not as 
member of the NPOC-EC or NCSG-EC.    The NPOC EC is drafting its own response.

I think that Martin’s points are valid as there is confusion as to the 
difference and meaning of the constituencies.   The organizational structure 
adds to that confusion.  Milton’s vast institutional knowledge certainly adds 
some clarity about how the situation has evolved but I want to point out a few 
things.  First of all, Section 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 of NPOC charter requires that 
members be organizations not individuals.  So, NPOC cannot start admitting 
individuals at any time.   NPOC was organized by a group of concerned 
nonprofits because there are points were NCUC and nonprofit organizational 
interests diverged…primarily in the area of the protection of organizational 
names.  While we are aligned very closely with issues regarding access and free 
speech, there are areas of concern regarding the security of the internet as it 
related to the misuse of organizational names for fundraising and fraud.  Some 
of the rights protection mechanisms that were being considered for commercial 
entities were of strong interest to nonprofits particularly those with a global 
brand presence.  There were other issues as well and a lot of negotiating.  I 
was not part of the those negotiations at the time.  However, there are others 
who were from the nonprofit org side who may want to chime in about what those 
discussions entailed and why the outcome is what it is.

Whether or not constituencies are still a good idea is certainly a topic for 
discussion.  My own feeling is that while nonprofit orgs may have some similar 
concerns to commercial entities in the name space there are many areas where 
they diverge when it comes to talking about access and accountability.     
There is a need for a home for nonprofit organizations as organizations.  For 
years, NCUC was that home.  However, there was enough interest generated within 
the orgs themselves that NPOC was born.

Lori


Lori S. Schulman · General Counsel
1703 North Beauregard Street

Alexandria, VA  22311-1714

P 703-575-5678 · Lori.Schulman@xxxxxxxx<mailto:Lori.Schulman@xxxxxxxx>
[cid:image001.png@01CC81E2.512C46F0]



From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Milton L 
Mueller
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 1:14 PM
To: NCSG-DISCUSS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: New member admission process and member databases

Martin
Some useful history for you. Prior to the GNSO reorganization, constituencies 
_were_ the basic organizational units of the GNSO. However, the noncommercial 
users constituency (NCUC) was outnumbered by commercial user constituencies 3 
to 1, and thus had no influence whatsoever.

In order to balance representation, some board-inspired reforms came up with 
the idea of broader stakeholder groups, which would be balanced between 
contracted parties (registrars and registries) and non-contracted or “user” 
parties (commercial and noncommercial stakeholder groups).

Under the new system Stakeholder Groups (SGs) became key units of the ICANN 
regime and as such commanded certain staff and support resources. We told ICANN 
staff at the time that it made no sense to continue to have constituencies AND 
SGs. Indeed, none of the contracted parties have “constituencies” any more. 
NCUC fought like hell to have an integrated SG so that we could avoid the 
organizational complexity and end user confusion that would come from a 
two-tiered process. We only partially succeeded, due to some really silly 
political reasons that we don’t have time to go into here.
One of the problems with constituencies is that if you succeed in creating one, 
you command support resources. So there is kind of an artificial incentive to 
break off from larger groups and form your own “constituency” so that you can 
be its officer and get travel support and whatever. In the commercial SG, which 
already had 3 existing constituencies, they refused to dissolve into the larger 
SG. As a result, Commercial SG constituencies have turned into protected 
fiefdoms which have actually outlawed the creation of any new constituency 
groupings that are not approved by the existing ones!

There are, in fact, no significant differences in the issue and policy 
perspectives of NPOC and NCUC. NCUC admits individual users, but most of its 
members are still organizations – and NPOC could decide to admit individual 
users tomorrow.

I think your analysis of the problem has it backwards. The constituencies are 
the problem, not the SG structure. We should abolish constituencies, as the 
contracting parties already have. We should have an integrated SG, and allow ad 
hoc interest groups to form within it around specific policy issues

The best way to resolve these problems is to dissolve constituencies altogether 
and make the noncommercial/civil society presence in GNSO an integrated 
Noncommercial Stakeholders Group.

From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Martin 
Pablo Silva Valent
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 11:57 AM
To: NCSG-DISCUSS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] New member admission process and member databases

Thanks all for the comments. They were helpful.

I do understand how it works now, what I am saying is that for me it seems 
dysfunctional, and that NCUC members and NPOC members have different stakes to 
defend, and creating this third instance (the NCSG) where everything mixes up 
seems unnecessary messy, although I can see a role of umbrella for the NCSG.

There is a conceptual mistake in the design of the NCSG. NCUC and NPOC are 
different stakeholders, since they identify different kinds of stakes, the 
reality of non for profit is completely different from an individual user, even 
when they are both non-commercial. In addition, even though the GNSO demands to 
have a NCSG, the proper way to deal with this NPOC/NCUC diversity is no to mix 
them but to allow them to define themselves, something that ion the current 
process is diluted.

In other words, what we call constituencies in this case should be the main 
consensus builder, since they are the closest to the stakeholders. Having the 
NCSG build consensus for them does not really make it rough, it makes it 
confusing by disregarding the real stakeholder group voice, the constituencies 
voice. The NCSG should be the result of the different consensus reached in the 
constituencies. I can understand creating new constituencies for a better 
structure, but I cannot see useful to have individual members in the NCSG that 
don’t belong to either NCUC or NPOC, if another constituency is necessary to 
hold another specific type of voices then another one should be build.

Cheers,
Martín.

Martín P. Silva Valent
Abogado / Lawyer
+54 911 64993943
mpsilvavalent@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mpsilvavalent@xxxxxxxxx>

--------------------------------------------

Este email, incluyendo adjuntos, podría contener información  confidencial 
protegida por ley y es para uso exclusivo de su destinatario. Si  Ud. no es el 
destinatario, se le advierte que cualquier uso, difusión, copia o  retención de 
este email o su contenido está estrictamente prohibido. Si Ud.  recibio este 
email por error, por favor avise inmediatamente al remitente por  teléfono o 
email y borre el mismo de su computadora. / This  e-mail, including any 
attachments, may contain information that is protected by  law as privileged 
and confidential, and is transmitted for the sole use of the  intended 
recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby  notified that 
any use, dissemination, copying or retention of this e-mail or the  information 
contained herein is strictly prohibited. If you have received this  e-mail in 
error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or reply  e-mail, and 
permanently delete this e-mail from your computer system.

2014-09-22 12:23 GMT-03:00 Rafik Dammak 
<rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>>:
Hi Martin,

I hope that I can clarify the situation here for you . as laywe, I think you 
will find some time to read the NCSG charter which explain the principles and 
give you better understanding :  
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Charter

I just never fully understood why NCUC and NPOC do not handle their own 
application process.

NCUC and NPOC handle their applications process, NCSG only approve NCSG members 
who may or not want to join constituencies, it is up to NCUC and NPOC to 
approve them as their members.


Why do people need to be NCSG first?

It would seem more useful that the NCSG where just an umbrella for NPOC and 
NCUC to help coordinate the NCUC and NPOC leaders.

yes we need NCSG, in fact constituencies cannot exist without it, they can be 
created and disbanded while the SG remains. it is not just in umbrella, a 
concept which may lead to the misunderstanding. it has the committees populated 
with representation from  constituencies and also elected officers like the 
NCSG chair and also the election of  GNSO councillors to represent the whole 
stakeholder group.

I think you observed  several times how many policies are discussed and 
statement done at the SG level.

the stakeholder group model also exist in other parts of GNSO such the 
contracted party (registries and registrars )where there is no constituency per 
se.

The present way of having NCSG members that are also NCUC and NPOC creates a 
double representation that can be confusing, misleading and dysfunctional. Am I 
clear with this idea?


there is confusion here, a NCSG member can be just a NCSG member without 
joining constituencies or joining both or just 1 ot them  . joining a 
constituency may be important for a member to work on some topic if s/he wants 
but it is not mandatory.
there is no double representation but more diversity of representation and 
affiliation. I don't think you disagree with this.

I think the NCSG should not act like a stakeholder itself but as a coalition of 
the stakeholder that make part of it, therefore, the NCSG would just be the 
place where NCUC and NPOC community leaders meet to take things up. If not, it 
seems that the decision made in the NCUC or in NPOC through the consensus are 
not valued.

if NCUC or NPOC want to make their statements or own positions, they are not 
prevented to do so. having NCSG ensure having a more common positions and avoid 
building silos that won't communicate with each other and weaken them  . at 
NCSG we work to build a position that have consensus of larger group, don't you 
think that is really strong? constituencies can also send their own statement 
to defend other points than a common position if they want.

It makes no sense that the same members that debate and reach consensus in NCUC 
and NPOC separately are the ones that debate about the same decision and reach 
a new and different consensus in the NCSG. The decision of NPOC and NCUC should 
be considered equal inside the NCSG and the NCSG decision should be a higher 
hierarchy consensus that brings together the already consensus made in NCUC and 
NPOC (a consensus of consensus in an upper level than the bottom stakeholder). 
I believe than the current process takes away consensus from the real bottoms, 
NPOC and NCUC, and brings a dysfunctional dynamic where NCUC and NPOC voices, 
especially NPOC’s, are diluted for no real reason thanks to a double 
representation of NCUC and NPCO members in the NCSG as NCSG members.

the constituencies have the same representation in the executive and policy 
committees, so they are able to provide their positions via their 
representatives who should liaise with their constituencies, in particular for 
the latter regarding the policies.
at NCSG ,we allow all members to communicate and debate  together and so  avoid 
a silo effect that will prevent members of different groups from discussing 
with each other.

we have real bottom-up process here: the individual and organizational members 
who can participate directly at NCSG level and expressing their ideas . don't 
you think that is really powerful and avoid voices trapped in structures level?


Just and idea, don't bite my head off!


no worry, all comments are welcome, it is learning space for everybody. hope 
that clarified things for you.

Rafik



2014-09-22 11:10 GMT-03:00 Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>>:

agree completely.

avri

On 22-Sep-14 04:40, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> Which brings me to one technical issue I've been harping about
> to various people privately for some time: I see little point
> in maintaining three distinct member databases, when two
> are (required to be) subsets of the third. It would be much
> easier to maintain just NCSG member database and have
> constituency membership there as an attribute
> (of course still leaving it up to each constituency to
> decide who they accept as their members, they just would
> not need to maintain members' contact info &c separately).
> This would make for an easy workflow for the three ECs,
> one place for members to check their membership details, &c.





Learn the secrets to great leadership practices at the ASCD Conference on 
Educational Leadership, October 31–November 2, 2014 in Orlando, Florida. 
Featured presenters include Todd Whitaker, Baruti Kafele, Robyn Jackson, and 
Carol Ann Tomlinson. Register NOW at www.ascd.org/cel.<http://www.ascd.org/cel>



This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of

the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is

confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or

have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy,
distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the
sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any

attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free.