<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Pardon the typo, I do know how to spell Tapani's name... It's my
"extended hunt-and-peck" typing style...<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/9/16 11:37 AM, Dan Krimm wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:4bab484f-783e-1151-b292-ba6aabd9b507@musicunbound.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p>Yes, but as Avri notes later (and as Raoul originally
observed), this was more about making it possible for petitions
to be brought by a subset of members without having to get a
percent of a total that includes non-responsive members.</p>
<p>Since Tapania has clarified that "active" just means "responded
to voting check-in" why not just have the 10% apply to active
members rather than total members? This does not require
purging inactive members, but prevents their inactivity from
hindering petition processes.</p>
<p>Dan<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/9/16 12:55 AM, Rafik Dammak
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAH5sThmv+g5Bt8sHcR5MK3QXRxKUDY=e_EMzCyddYFaZ9xHfpQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">Hi Dan,</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">with regard to charter amendment,
executive committee can initiate it as per the article A in
section VIII. that is how we did for this time.<br>
<br>
Best,</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Rafik</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2016-09-09 16:51 GMT+09:00 Dan
Krimm <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:dan@musicunbound.com" target="_blank">dan@musicunbound.com</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">There
are other ways to balance the hurdle for charter
amendments --<br>
abjectly kicking out passive members is not the only
option. The 10%<br>
could be applied to *active* members, however that is
defined (one idea:<br>
has voted in an election in the last N elections, not
sure what number N<br>
should be -- but what was the criterion going to be for
"passive" members,<br>
anyway?).<br>
<br>
So then "passive" members would not prevent amendments
from being<br>
petitioned, while still remaining members.<br>
<br>
All groups such as this reflect a power-law curve
(roughly: "80/20" rule)<br>
in participation. But individuals from that "long tail"
can occasionally<br>
pop up and do something useful (my engagement of the
election reform<br>
process is a case in point).<br>
<br>
It's always better to be inclusive, but then it seems to
make sense to<br>
define procedures so that spotty participation doesn't
bog down the<br>
process.<br>
<br>
Dan<br>
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
On Fri, September 9, 2016 12:34 am, Michael Oghia
wrote:<br>
> Thank you for this impassioned defense, Mark.
Indeed, with the idea that<br>
> anyone can join the mailing list, listen in on
the conversations, and<br>
> choose to be as active or inactive as they
want, any individual not only<br>
> has the right to do so but increases the
accountability and transparency<br>
> of<br>
> our processes.<br>
><br>
> What I am thinking instead since this point has
been raised is connected<br>
> to<br>
> the annual check-in process. Since we already
check to see if people who<br>
> have signed up have an active email address
(for the purposes of voting),<br>
> I<br>
> think we should maintain a policy that as long
as someone has signed up,<br>
> has an active address, and is not engaging in
blatantly obstructing<br>
> behavior (e.g., spamming the list(s)), such
members have every right to<br>
> recieve updates and mails, as Mark so
brilliantly highlighted.<br>
><br>
> Moreover, discerning the criteria to
essentially remove someone from<br>
> NCSG/NCUC is a pandora's box in and of itself.<br>
><br>
> Best,<br>
> -Michael<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Mark Leiser
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:markleiser@gmail.com">markleiser@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
>> I would vigorously object at the suggestion
that "passive members" get<br>
>> kicked out the constituency and would
suggest not only is it completely<br>
>> off<br>
>> course, but also offensive and
counterproductive. I am one of the<br>
>> "passive<br>
>> members" you refer to and hardly ever post
on these threads, yet I read<br>
>> every email and contemplate the
implications of the discussions and<br>
>> debates<br>
>> that come into my Inbox. I may be a
"passive member" here, which is what<br>
>> you seem to want to judge me on, but am
active in promoting civil<br>
>> society's<br>
>> role in Internet Governance in my academic
setting (I teach Internet<br>
>> Governance on our LLM Programme at my home
institute and discuss NCSG's<br>
>> role within ICANN to a lesser extent when
teaching at the London School<br>
>> of<br>
>> Economics.<br>
>><br>
>> My "passivity" turns "active" when I take
what I have learned and<br>
>> through<br>
>> silent contemplation, write extensively
about the role of civil society<br>
>> in<br>
>> Internet Governance and particularly the
NCSG's role in fighting back<br>
>> against IP owners and other non-state
actors over governance.<br>
>><br>
>> Enter shameless plug for my chapter in the
forthcoming Oxford Handbook<br>
>> on<br>
>> the Law and Regulation of Technology.
Oxford University Press:<br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/54396/"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://strathprints.strath.ac.<wbr>uk/54396/</a><br>
>><br>
>> I feel incredibly passionate about the role
of NCUC and NCSG in holding<br>
>> ICANN to check. I didn't think I'd have to
post here from time to time<br>
>> in<br>
>> order to validate my feelings...<br>
>><br>
>> Mark<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Mark<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Mark Leiser, BSc, LLB (Hon) | Teaching
Associate and PhD Candidate |<br>
>> University of Strathclyde | Faculty of
Humanities and Social Science |<br>
>> The<br>
>> Law School l Centre for Internet Law and
Policy | LH306 | Lord Hope<br>
>> Building | 141 St James Road | Glasgow G4
0LT | Tel. <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B44%20141-548-2493"
value="+441415482493">+44 141-548-2493</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
</div>
</div>
>> Email <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:markleiser@gmail.com">markleiser@gmail.com</a>>
| Bio<br>
>> <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.strath.ac.uk/humanities/courses/gradschool/studentprofiles/markleiser/"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.strath.ac.uk/<wbr>humanities/courses/gradschool/<wbr>studentprofiles/markleiser/</a>><br>
>> | Twitter <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://twitter.com/#%21/mleiser"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/#!/mleiser</a><wbr>>
| LinkedIn<br>
>> <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=189149411&trk=tab_pro"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.linkedin.com/<wbr>profile/view?id=189149411&trk=<wbr>tab_pro</a>>
|<br>
>> Google+<br>
>> <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/105289982691060086995/posts"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://plus.google.com/u/0/<wbr>105289982691060086995/posts</a>><br>
<span class="">>><br>
>><br>
>> On 9 September 2016 at 06:45, Raoul Plommer
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:plommer@gmail.com">plommer@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> This might be completely off course, but
should we have a way to kick<br>
>>> out<br>
>>> passive members, who haven't done
anything for ... one or two years?<br>
>>> That<br>
>>> ten percent could become unattainable
eventually.<br>
>>><br>
>>> -Raoul<br>
>>><br>
>>> On 9 September 2016 at 02:59, Rafik
Dammak <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a>><br>
>>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>>> Hi everyone,<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I am glad to share with you this
important announcement, on behalf of<br>
>>>> NCUC EC, to start the NCUC Bylaws
change process.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> There were previously several
attempts to amend the bylaws/charter to<br>
>>>> update it and align it with NCSG
charter. For this time and as the<br>
>>>> bylaws<br>
>>>> allowed it, the NCUC EC decided to
work as drafting team and propose<br>
>>>> an<br>
>>>> amended draft version for
consultation based on previous drafting<br>
>>>> teams and<br>
>>>> volunteers work. I want to thank
everyone who participated on those<br>
>>>> precedent efforts.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> In term of timeline, we are going to
follow this basically:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
</span>>>>> - *Call for input*, *first
reading* from *9th September till 8th<br>
>>>> Octobe*r<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> NCUC Charter Amendments<br>
>>>> <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wYP4-JGKA_u6QligvViBkygzj8Q62kmFF-ky5XSWWDU/edit#heading=h.30j0zll"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/<wbr>document/d/1wYP4-JGKA_<wbr>u6QligvViBkygzj8Q62kmFF-<wbr>ky5XSWWDU/edit#heading=h.<wbr>30j0zll</a>><br>
<span class="">>>>> First Draft<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> NB During this time, the EC will
regularly monitor the doc for<br>
>>>> questions<br>
>>>> and comments and attempts to resolve
them. Teleconferences can be held<br>
>>>> as<br>
>>>> well to resolve issues and update
members on our progress<br>
>>>><br>
</span>>>>> - *First resolution of
comments* 8th October to 9th October by<br>
>>>> NCUC EC<br>
>>>> - *Call for input, second reading*
for amended draft, *9th<br>
>>>> October to 9th November*<br>
>>>> - *Consultation about the charter
during NCUC ad-hoc meeting* in<br>
<span class="">>>>> Hyderabad (tentative
date is 6th November)<br>
</span>>>>> - *Final call* : *9th
November to 12th November* , to take note<br>
>>>> of<br>
>>>> any objections<br>
>>>> - *Final draft ready* by *13th
November* to be approved by NCUC<br>
>>>> EC<br>
>>>> - * Voting *in parallel with NCUC
election (tentative dates *14<br>
>>>> Nov. - 27 Nov*) to adopt the new
charter.<br>
>>>> - *When adopted*, informing the
ICANN staff about the new<br>
<span class="">>>>> charter,<br>
>>>> process with ICANN board/staff/OEC
(Organizational Effectiveness<br>
>>>> Committee) starts. That process is
outlined and explained at the<br>
>>>> bottom<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> As working method, we are going to
follow this:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
</span>>>>> - The clean version of draft
is shared in google doc here<br>
>>>> <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wYP4-JGKA_u6QligvViBkygzj8Q62kmFF-ky5XSWWDU/edit?usp=sharing"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/<wbr>document/d/1wYP4-JGKA_<wbr>u6QligvViBkygzj8Q62kmFF-<wbr>ky5XSWWDU/edit?usp=sharing</a>><br>
<span class="">>>>> and<br>
>>>> you can find the attached redline
version to see the changes. For<br>
>>>> those who cannot access we can
provide a doc version and will input<br>
>>>> their<br>
>>>> comments on their behalf. The
google doc is in comments mode (and<br>
>>>> keeping<br>
>>>> trace of the discussion, please
identify yourself when you comment)<br>
>>>> and<br>
>>>> your input is highly encouraged
to be made there but discussion<br>
>>>> can<br>
>>>> happen in NCUC list.<br>
</span>>>>> - Farzaneh as EC member will
be the editor/penholder. The EC will<br>
<span class="">>>>> respond to the
comments and try solve any issue or questions.<br>
</span>>>>> - During each readings, we
will try to resolve comments, explain<br>
<span class="">>>>> rationale behind
amendments. We will keep a clean version as output<br>
>>>> from a<br>
>>>> reading .<br>
</span>>>>> - We will organize
conference calls during each<br>
<span class="">>>>> reading/consultation
to respond to questions and resolve pending<br>
>>>> issues, in<br>
>>>> addition to a dedicated session in
Hyderabad ICANN meeting (where<br>
>>>> remote<br>
>>>> participation channels will be
provided too)<br>
</span>>>>> - We will organize a first a
Q&A call about the process and to<br>
<span class="">>>>> clarify about ICANN
process side. We will create a page in our<br>
>>>> website to<br>
>>>> document the process and keep the
documents there for tracking.<br>
</span>>>>> - The NCUC EC will respond to
questions/inquiries in the mailing<br>
>>>> list.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> *Adoption process*<br>
<span class="">>>>><br>
>>>> according to section VIII of the
current bylaws, to amend the bylaws<br>
>>>> we<br>
>>>> need:<br>
>>>><br>
</span>>>>> *A. Changes to this
charter may take place by vote of the<br>
<span class="">>>>> Members. Changes may be
proposed by the Executive Committee or by<br>
>>>> petition<br>
>>>> of the Members. A petition of ten
(10) percent of the then-current<br>
>>>> members<br>
>>>> shall be sufficient for putting a
charter amendment on the ballot for<br>
>>>> consideration at the next regular
election. Alternatively, the<br>
>>>> Executive<br>
>>>> Committee by majority vote may
propose an amendment for consideration<br>
>>>> at<br>
</span>>>>> the next regular election.*<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> *B. Charter amendments shall
be passed if at least two<br>
<span class="">>>>> thirds<br>
>>>> of the votes cast in the election
favor its adoption (provided 40% or<br>
>>>> more<br>
</span>>>>> of the eligible Voters cast a
ballot in the election).*<br>
<span class="">>>>><br>
>>>> the voting/election period will take
this on consideration (under<br>
>>>> discussion currently) with regard to
the ballot and procedures to be<br>
>>>> defined by the NCUC EC.<br>
</span>>>>> *Board/OEC process:*<br>
<span class="">>>>><br>
>>>> At a high level, the GNSO Charter
Amendment Process involves a total<br>
>>>> of<br>
>>>> four basic phases<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
</span>>>>> · Amendment preparations
and approval by the charter-amending<br>
>>>> community;<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> · Staff review and analysis of
amendments for potential ICANN<br>
>>>> organization impacts;<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> · Review of amendments and
opportunity for comment by the<br>
>>>> multistakeholder community; and<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> · Full Board review and action<br>
<span class="">>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> According to ICANN staff, the entire
Board review process (which<br>
>>>> involves the last three phases of the
process) seems to now be taking<br>
>>>> about<br>
>>>> 6 or 7 months (calculating from the
formal submission of the<br>
>>>> amendments to<br>
>>>> staff). The specifics of the process
look like this:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
</span>>>>> *SUMMARY OF GNSO CHARTER
AMENDMENT PROCESS (Excerpts)*<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> *On 28 September 2013, the ICANN Board
established a process for the<br>
<span class="">>>>> amendment of GNSO
Stakeholder Group and Constituency Charters. That<br>
>>>> process<br>
</span>>>>> is as follows:*<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> *Phase I: Amendment Preparation*<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> *GNSO Stakeholder Groups (SGs) and
Constituencies should formulate<br>
<span class="">>>>> charter amendments
through their own internal processes and notify<br>
>>>> ICANN<br>
</span>>>>> Staff as early as practicable
(at **<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:policy-staff@icann.org">policy-staff@icann.org</a><br>
>>>> <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:policy-staff@icann.org">policy-staff@icann.org</a>>)
upon initiation and completion (approval) of<br>
>>>> such<br>
>>>> efforts.*<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> *Phase II: Staff Review*<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> *Upon formal receipt of the proposed
amendment(s) approved by the<br>
<span class="">>>>> community group, ICANN
staff will analyze the proposal and, within 10<br>
>>>> business days, submit the community
proposal with a report to the<br>
>>>> appropriate Board committee
identifying any fiscal or liability<br>
</span>>>>> concerns.*<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> *Phase III: Public Comments*<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> *After Board committee review of the
Staff report and the proposed<br>
<span class="">>>>> charter amendments, the
Board committee will direct the opening of a<br>
>>>> Public<br>
>>>> Comment Forum. Upon completion of the
Forum, within 30 calendar days,<br>
>>>> staff<br>
>>>> will provide a report to the Board
committee summarizing the community<br>
</span>>>>> feedback.*<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> *Phase IV: Board Review*<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> *At the next available opportunity
after the delivery and publication<br>
<span class="">>>>> of<br>
>>>> the staff report, the appropriate
Board committee shall review the<br>
>>>> proposed<br>
>>>> charter amendments, the staff report
and any community feedback and<br>
>>>> make a<br>
</span>>>>> recommendation to the Board.*<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> *After receiving a recommendation from
the committee, the Board shall<br>
>>>> either:*<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> *a. **Recognize the proposed
charter amendment by a simple<br>
>>>> majority<br>
>>>> vote; or*<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> *b. **Reject the proposed amendment
by a supermajority (2/3) vote<br>
>>>> and provide a specific rationale for
its concerns.*<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> *c. **If neither above condition is
met, the Board will ask for<br>
>>>> further explanation of the proposed
amendments by the community.*<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> *In its review of the proposed
amendments, the ICANN Board may ask<br>
<span class="">>>>> questions and otherwise
consult with the affected SG or Constituency.<br>
>>>> If it<br>
>>>> is not feasible for the Board to take
action on the proposed<br>
>>>> amendments<br>
>>>> after two meetings, the Board shall
report to the affected SG or<br>
>>>> Constituency the circumstance(s) that
prevented it from making a final<br>
>>>> action and its best estimate of the
time required to reach an action.<br>
>>>> That<br>
>>>> report is deemed an "action" under
this process. If it is not feasible<br>
>>>> for<br>
>>>> the Board to take action on the
proposed amendments after four<br>
>>>> meetings (or<br>
>>>> after a total of six scheduled
meetings), the proposed community<br>
>>>> amendments<br>
</span>>>>> will be deemed effective.*<br>
<span class="">>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> The full process is posted on the
ICANN GNSO web site at the bottom of<br>
>>>> this page<br>
</span>>>>> –<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://gnso.icann.org/en/<wbr>about/stakeholders-<wbr>constituencies</a>.<br>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5">>>>> A pdf version of the
process can be viewed and downloaded from this<br>
>>>> link -<br>
>>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://gnso.icann.org/en/<wbr>about/stakeholders-<wbr>constituencies</a><br>
>>>> /charter-amendment-process-<wbr>28sep13-en.pdf<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Please feel free to ask any
question or clarification about the<br>
>>>> process<br>
>>>> and the bylaw draft. We need
everyone participation in this process.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Best Regards,<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Rafik Dammak<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> NCUC chair<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
>>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list<br>
>>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a><br>
>>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list<br>
>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a><br>
>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>><br>
>> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list<br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a><br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a><br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Ncuc-discuss mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss">http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>