Re: [NA-Discuss] Requirements for NARALO individual membership and related motion (Beau, 10 min)
Actually, I believe that's a leftover agenda item from the last meeting. I probably won't get around to updating the agenda until Monday AM now, as the meeting apparently was accidentally deleted from ICANN staff's calendars and as a result I had not paid attention to the agenda until today. Unless there is something you want brought up, I probably won't put it on there. When it was discussed, the general drift was to leave the individual membership requirements more or less alone, though I don't believe the issue was resolved as to creating more specificity for eligibility (i.e., indy members should be in a non-profit or non-commercial capacity). I'm the one who put the agenda item on there, out of concern for the pre-GAC scorecard kibitzing we were getting on the NA list from contracted parties. But that seems to have passed us, in both time and passion. And I understand that people generally want to err on the side of inclusiveness rather than exclusiveness. Anyway, my opinion on that whole thing has evolved to basically this: I trust the individual membership representative, Eric B-W, to alert us to any concerns going forward. -----Original Message-----
From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> Sent: May 6, 2011 7:28 PM To: "na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> Subject: Requirements for NARALO individual membership and related motion (Beau, 10 min)
I see that the upcoming NARALO agenda has this item on it. Which individual membership requirements are being re-evaluated and what is the motion that will be up for discussion?
Thanks, Danny
I totally agree with Beau on this matter. The individual members can "police" themselves and if changes need to be made in the future, we can address them then. D Darlene A. Thompson CAP Administrator N-CAP/Department of Education P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 dthompson@gov.nu.ca ________________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] on behalf of Beau Brendler [beaubrendler@earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 7:50 PM To: Danny Younger; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Requirements for NARALO individual membership and related motion (Beau, 10 min) Actually, I believe that's a leftover agenda item from the last meeting. I probably won't get around to updating the agenda until Monday AM now, as the meeting apparently was accidentally deleted from ICANN staff's calendars and as a result I had not paid attention to the agenda until today. Unless there is something you want brought up, I probably won't put it on there. When it was discussed, the general drift was to leave the individual membership requirements more or less alone, though I don't believe the issue was resolved as to creating more specificity for eligibility (i.e., indy members should be in a non-profit or non-commercial capacity). I'm the one who put the agenda item on there, out of concern for the pre-GAC scorecard kibitzing we were getting on the NA list from contracted parties. But that seems to have passed us, in both time and passion. And I understand that people generally want to err on the side of inclusiveness rather than exclusiveness. Anyway, my opinion on that whole thing has evolved to basically this: I trust the individual membership representative, Eric B-W, to alert us to any concerns going forward. -----Original Message-----
From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> Sent: May 6, 2011 7:28 PM To: "na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> Subject: Requirements for NARALO individual membership and related motion (Beau, 10 min)
I see that the upcoming NARALO agenda has this item on it. Which individual membership requirements are being re-evaluated and what is the motion that will be up for discussion?
Thanks, Danny
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
On 7 May 2011 08:47, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson1@gov.nu.ca> wrote:
I totally agree with Beau on this matter. The individual members can "police" themselves and if changes need to be made in the future, we can address them then.
+1 I agree that the individual members' _representative_ should not be a contracted party or otherwise have a business interest in ICANN or domain selling (and I recall that Eric has to wait until he left CORE to be eligible), but that the members themselves should not have such a requirement. Frankly, I was very impressed with how NARALO handled the trolling attempts. - Evan
I think the fundamental issue is ensuring that self-interest does not capture or reduce the efficacy of the public interest. The group model ensures that most contracted party affiliated individuals will, should they advocate for any interest, private or public, engage through the local group. Hypothetically, this could result in a "Reston" group in which the interests of two registry operators was determinant, and similar results where other contracted parties have enough individual employees and their dependents to influence policy advocacy. However, in the scope and structure of the NARALO such capture of the process would be damped, if not drowned out, by the vastly larger number of groups with no material interest in contracted party self interest. So, at the general membership level, diversity and vitality are the defenses to public interest capture or reduction of efficacy. Should either the diversity or vitality of the NARALO be significantly reduced, these defenses against private interest capture may also be reduced. For the elected officers of the NARALO, in particular the Unaffiliated Member Representative, an office I currently hold, some eligibility criteria is reasonable, e.g., continuous availability and engagement, and not being an employee or shareholder of a contracted party seems prudent and non-excessive. Eric On 5/7/11 11:25 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 7 May 2011 08:47, Thompson, Darlene<DThompson1@gov.nu.ca> wrote:
I totally agree with Beau on this matter. The individual members can "police" themselves and if changes need to be made in the future, we can address them then.
+1
I agree that the individual members' _representative_ should not be a contracted party or otherwise have a business interest in ICANN or domain selling (and I recall that Eric has to wait until he left CORE to be eligible), but that the members themselves should not have such a requirement.
Frankly, I was very impressed with how NARALO handled the trolling attempts.
- Evan ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
participants (4)
-
Beau Brendler -
Eric Brunner-Williams -
Evan Leibovitch -
Thompson, Darlene