[NCUC-DISCUSS] [Important] NCUC Bylaws amendment consultation process
Raoul Plommer
plommer at gmail.com
Mon Sep 12 23:50:11 CEST 2016
Ok, I should've not written about kicking anyone _out_, but out of a list
of people, where ten percent is significant. My main concern was these
"zombies" clogging the process, like Dan thankfully picked upon. I think
even if one stopped being a member, one would still get these NCUC-emails
for example, and I see no reason why this shouldn't be the case.
It's good to specify these conditions of ten percent to be out of the
active, voting populace. So where it says:
"
*Changes to this charter may take place by vote of the Members. Changes may
be proposed by the Executive Committee or by petition of the Members. A
petition of ten (10) percent of the then-current members shall be
sufficient for putting a charter amendment on the ballot for consideration
at the next regular election."*
*It should say:*
*Changes to this charter may take place by vote of the Members. Changes may
be proposed by the Executive Committee or by petition of the **active**
Members. A petition of ten (10) percent of the **active*
* members shall be sufficient for putting a charter amendment on the ballot
for consideration at the next regular election.*
Now we just need to agree on how that "active" is defined. I think missing
the election registrations for a couple of years in a row would be
sufficient.
-Raoul
On 12 September 2016 at 21:35, aicha chebbi <a.j.chebbi at gmail.com> wrote:
> I totally agree that 'silent, passive or non active members' in this wg
> does not necessarily mean that they are doing nothing. I am by the way, one
> of these people and i am definitely in a learning process, which means it
> will me sone time to interact and contribute.
> I think once we applied and asked to join this group, shows our interest
> in it and its work.
> So, i request gently from the old members, instead of dismissing, to give
> time to new ones and why not give a hand in explaining the things that
> maight be unclear or taugh.
> Best.
> Aicha Jeridi.
>
> Le lun. 12 sept. 2016 18:27, Aaron Eitan Meyer <
> aaron.eitan.meyer at gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>> As someone who always reads everything, but extremely rarely comments, I
>> think this is the right response. A big plus one.
>>
>> Aaron Eitan Meyer, Esq.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Sep 12, 2016, at 1:22 PM, Nadira Alaraj <nadira.araj at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Tapani & all,
>> As it had been said here the silent majority might not be active for many
>> reasons, one of the cases mentioned that they might be in the learning
>> stage.
>> However, a good practice is to do housecleaning for the mailing list.
>> Some emails might be bouncing back others might changed their work emails
>> and never attempted to replace their email.
>> Those handful of nonexistent emails could be removed after listing them
>> to the community to reach their owners if they know any updates about them.
>> Best wishes,
>> Nadira Alaraj
>>
>> On Sep 9, 2016 3:55 PM, "Tapani Tarvainen" <ncuc at tapani.tarvainen.info>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Mark,
>>>
>>> I think you may have misunderstood the intent here.
>>>
>>> For NCSG the concept of passive membership is well-defined,
>>> it's in the charter: you will be considered passive if you
>>> do not respond to the yearly voter registration or check-in
>>> process NCSG conducts before each election. It has nothing
>>> to do about activity on the mailing lists.
>>>
>>> And the idea we've been considering is removing those
>>> who have been passive for many years - those we haven't
>>> been able to reach by any means we've been able to try.
>>>
>>> So all you'd need to do is respond to an email once
>>> every few years to retain membership.
>>>
>>> We may add some extra steps before removing members,
>>> like one additional attempt to reach them, announcement
>>> on the list in case someone there knows them, &c.
>>>
>>> But certainly the intent is not to drive away members
>>> who want to support our cause but do not have the time
>>> to actively engage in mailing lists or otherwise.
>>> All we really need is some assurance that their
>>> email works and that they want to remain members.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>>
>>> On Sep 09 08:13, Mark Leiser (markleiser at gmail.com) wrote:
>>>
>>> > I would vigorously object at the suggestion that "passive members" get
>>> > kicked out the constituency and would suggest not only is it
>>> completely off
>>> > course, but also offensive and counterproductive. I am one of the
>>> "passive
>>> > members" you refer to and hardly ever post on these threads, yet I read
>>> > every email and contemplate the implications of the discussions and
>>> debates
>>> > that come into my Inbox. I may be a "passive member" here, which is
>>> what
>>> > you seem to want to judge me on, but am active in promoting civil
>>> society's
>>> > role in Internet Governance in my academic setting (I teach Internet
>>> > Governance on our LLM Programme at my home institute and discuss NCSG's
>>> > role within ICANN to a lesser extent when teaching at the London
>>> School of
>>> > Economics.
>>> >
>>> > My "passivity" turns "active" when I take what I have learned and
>>> through
>>> > silent contemplation, write extensively about the role of civil
>>> society in
>>> > Internet Governance and particularly the NCSG's role in fighting back
>>> > against IP owners and other non-state actors over governance.
>>> >
>>> > Enter shameless plug for my chapter in the forthcoming Oxford Handbook
>>> on
>>> > the Law and Regulation of Technology. Oxford University Press:
>>> > http://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/54396/
>>> >
>>> > I feel incredibly passionate about the role of NCUC and NCSG in holding
>>> > ICANN to check. I didn't think I'd have to post here from time to time
>>> in
>>> > order to validate my feelings...
>>> >
>>> > Mark
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Mark
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Mark Leiser, BSc, LLB (Hon) | Teaching Associate and PhD Candidate |
>>> > University of Strathclyde | Faculty of Humanities and Social Science |
>>> The
>>> > Law School l Centre for Internet Law and Policy | LH306 | Lord Hope
>>> > Building | 141 St James Road | Glasgow G4 0LT | Tel. +44 141-548-2493
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Email <markleiser at gmail.com> | Bio
>>> > <https://www.strath.ac.uk/humanities/courses/gradschool/
>>> studentprofiles/markleiser/>
>>> > | Twitter <http://twitter.com/#!/mleiser> | LinkedIn
>>> > <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=189149411&trk=tab_pro> |
>>> Google+
>>> > <https://plus.google.com/u/0/105289982691060086995/posts>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 9 September 2016 at 06:45, Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > This might be completely off course, but should we have a way to
>>> kick out
>>> > > passive members, who haven't done anything for ... one or two years?
>>> That
>>> > > ten percent could become unattainable eventually.
>>> > >
>>> > > -Raoul
>>> > >
>>> > > On 9 September 2016 at 02:59, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >> Hi everyone,
>>> > >>
>>> > >> I am glad to share with you this important announcement, on behalf
>>> of
>>> > >> NCUC EC, to start the NCUC Bylaws change process.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> There were previously several attempts to amend the bylaws/charter
>>> to
>>> > >> update it and align it with NCSG charter. For this time and as the
>>> bylaws
>>> > >> allowed it, the NCUC EC decided to work as drafting team and
>>> propose an
>>> > >> amended draft version for consultation based on previous drafting
>>> teams and
>>> > >> volunteers work. I want to thank everyone who participated on those
>>> > >> precedent efforts.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> In term of timeline, we are going to follow this basically:
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> - *Call for input*, *first reading* from *9th September till
>>> 8th
>>> > >> Octobe*r
>>> > >>
>>> > >> NCUC Charter Amendments
>>> > >> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wYP4-JGKA_
>>> u6QligvViBkygzj8Q62kmFF-ky5XSWWDU/edit#heading=h.30j0zll>
>>> > >> First Draft
>>> > >>
>>> > >> NB During this time, the EC will regularly monitor the doc for
>>> questions
>>> > >> and comments and attempts to resolve them. Teleconferences can be
>>> held as
>>> > >> well to resolve issues and update members on our progress
>>> > >>
>>> > >> - *First resolution of comments* 8th October to 9th October by
>>> NCUC
>>> > >> EC
>>> > >> - *Call for input, second reading* for amended draft, *9th
>>> October
>>> > >> to 9th November*
>>> > >> - *Consultation about the charter during NCUC ad-hoc meeting*
>>> in
>>> > >> Hyderabad (tentative date is 6th November)
>>> > >> - *Final call* : *9th November to 12th November* , to take
>>> note of
>>> > >> any objections
>>> > >> - *Final draft ready* by *13th November* to be approved by
>>> NCUC EC
>>> > >> - * Voting *in parallel with NCUC election (tentative dates *14
>>> Nov.
>>> > >> - 27 Nov*) to adopt the new charter.
>>> > >> - *When adopted*, informing the ICANN staff about the new
>>> charter,
>>> > >> process with ICANN board/staff/OEC (Organizational Effectiveness
>>> > >> Committee) starts. That process is outlined and explained at the
>>> bottom
>>> > >>
>>> > >> As working method, we are going to follow this:
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> - The clean version of draft is shared in google doc here
>>> > >> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wYP4-JGKA_
>>> u6QligvViBkygzj8Q62kmFF-ky5XSWWDU/edit?usp=sharing> and
>>> > >> you can find the attached redline version to see the changes. For
>>> > >> those who cannot access we can provide a doc version and will
>>> input their
>>> > >> comments on their behalf. The google doc is in comments mode
>>> (and keeping
>>> > >> trace of the discussion, please identify yourself when you
>>> comment) and
>>> > >> your input is highly encouraged to be made there but
>>> discussion can
>>> > >> happen in NCUC list.
>>> > >> - Farzaneh as EC member will be the editor/penholder. The EC will
>>> > >> respond to the comments and try solve any issue or questions.
>>> > >> - During each readings, we will try to resolve comments, explain
>>> > >> rationale behind amendments. We will keep a clean version as
>>> output from a
>>> > >> reading .
>>> > >> - We will organize conference calls during each
>>> reading/consultation
>>> > >> to respond to questions and resolve pending issues, in addition
>>> to a
>>> > >> dedicated session in Hyderabad ICANN meeting (where remote
>>> participation
>>> > >> channels will be provided too)
>>> > >> - We will organize a first a Q&A call about the process and to
>>> > >> clarify about ICANN process side. We will create a page in our
>>> website to
>>> > >> document the process and keep the documents there for tracking.
>>> > >> - The NCUC EC will respond to questions/inquiries in the mailing
>>> list.
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> *Adoption process*
>>> > >>
>>> > >> according to section VIII of the current bylaws, to amend the
>>> bylaws we
>>> > >> need:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> *A. Changes to this charter may take place by vote of the
>>> > >> Members. Changes may be proposed by the Executive Committee or by
>>> petition
>>> > >> of the Members. A petition of ten (10) percent of the then-current
>>> members
>>> > >> shall be sufficient for putting a charter amendment on the ballot
>>> for
>>> > >> consideration at the next regular election. Alternatively, the
>>> Executive
>>> > >> Committee by majority vote may propose an amendment for
>>> consideration at
>>> > >> the next regular election.*
>>> > >>
>>> > >> *B. Charter amendments shall be passed if at least two
>>> thirds
>>> > >> of the votes cast in the election favor its adoption (provided 40%
>>> or more
>>> > >> of the eligible Voters cast a ballot in the election).*
>>> > >>
>>> > >> the voting/election period will take this on consideration (under
>>> > >> discussion currently) with regard to the ballot and procedures to be
>>> > >> defined by the NCUC EC.
>>> > >> *Board/OEC process:*
>>> > >>
>>> > >> At a high level, the GNSO Charter Amendment Process involves a
>>> total of
>>> > >> four basic phases
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> · Amendment preparations and approval by the charter-amending
>>> > >> community;
>>> > >>
>>> > >> · Staff review and analysis of amendments for potential ICANN
>>> > >> organization impacts;
>>> > >>
>>> > >> · Review of amendments and opportunity for comment by the
>>> > >> multistakeholder community; and
>>> > >>
>>> > >> · Full Board review and action
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> According to ICANN staff, the entire Board review process (which
>>> involves
>>> > >> the last three phases of the process) seems to now be taking about
>>> 6 or 7
>>> > >> months (calculating from the formal submission of the amendments to
>>> > >> staff). The specifics of the process look like this:
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> *SUMMARY OF GNSO CHARTER AMENDMENT PROCESS (Excerpts)*
>>> > >>
>>> > >> *On 28 September 2013, the ICANN Board established a process for the
>>> > >> amendment of GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Charters. That
>>> process
>>> > >> is as follows:*
>>> > >>
>>> > >> *Phase I: Amendment Preparation*
>>> > >>
>>> > >> *GNSO Stakeholder Groups (SGs) and Constituencies should formulate
>>> > >> charter amendments through their own internal processes and notify
>>> ICANN
>>> > >> Staff as early as practicable (at **policy-staff at icann.org
>>> > >> <policy-staff at icann.org>) upon initiation and completion
>>> (approval) of such
>>> > >> efforts.*
>>> > >>
>>> > >> *Phase II: Staff Review*
>>> > >>
>>> > >> *Upon formal receipt of the proposed amendment(s) approved by the
>>> > >> community group, ICANN staff will analyze the proposal and, within
>>> 10
>>> > >> business days, submit the community proposal with a report to the
>>> > >> appropriate Board committee identifying any fiscal or liability
>>> concerns.*
>>> > >>
>>> > >> *Phase III: Public Comments*
>>> > >>
>>> > >> *After Board committee review of the Staff report and the proposed
>>> > >> charter amendments, the Board committee will direct the opening of
>>> a Public
>>> > >> Comment Forum. Upon completion of the Forum, within 30 calendar
>>> days, staff
>>> > >> will provide a report to the Board committee summarizing the
>>> community
>>> > >> feedback.*
>>> > >>
>>> > >> *Phase IV: Board Review*
>>> > >>
>>> > >> *At the next available opportunity after the delivery and
>>> publication of
>>> > >> the staff report, the appropriate Board committee shall review the
>>> proposed
>>> > >> charter amendments, the staff report and any community feedback and
>>> make a
>>> > >> recommendation to the Board.*
>>> > >>
>>> > >> *After receiving a recommendation from the committee, the Board
>>> shall
>>> > >> either:*
>>> > >>
>>> > >> *a. **Recognize the proposed charter amendment by a simple
>>> majority
>>> > >> vote; or*
>>> > >>
>>> > >> *b. **Reject the proposed amendment by a supermajority (2/3)
>>> vote
>>> > >> and provide a specific rationale for its concerns.*
>>> > >>
>>> > >> *c. **If neither above condition is met, the Board will ask for
>>> > >> further explanation of the proposed amendments by the community.*
>>> > >>
>>> > >> *In its review of the proposed amendments, the ICANN Board may ask
>>> > >> questions and otherwise consult with the affected SG or
>>> Constituency. If it
>>> > >> is not feasible for the Board to take action on the proposed
>>> amendments
>>> > >> after two meetings, the Board shall report to the affected SG or
>>> > >> Constituency the circumstance(s) that prevented it from making a
>>> final
>>> > >> action and its best estimate of the time required to reach an
>>> action. That
>>> > >> report is deemed an "action" under this process. If it is not
>>> feasible for
>>> > >> the Board to take action on the proposed amendments after four
>>> meetings (or
>>> > >> after a total of six scheduled meetings), the proposed community
>>> amendments
>>> > >> will be deemed effective.*
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> The full process is posted on the ICANN GNSO web site at the bottom
>>> of
>>> > >> this page –http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-
>>> constituencies.
>>> > >> A pdf version of the process can be viewed and downloaded from this
>>> link -
>>> > >> http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies
>>> > >> /charter-amendment-process-28sep13-en.pdf
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Please feel free to ask any question or clarification about the
>>> process
>>> > >> and the bylaw draft. We need everyone participation in this process.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Best Regards,
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Rafik Dammak
>>> > >>
>>> > >> NCUC chair
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20160913/fda8d126/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list