<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi<div><br></div><div>Since we have no operating Policy Committee*, it would seem we don't really have a specific and functioning, bylaws-defined process for adopting policy statements. Nevertheless, NCUC has been doing adopting them anyway from the outset based on consensus calls on the relevant lists. This is not an ideal situation, but whatever, it's where we're at now. </div><div><br></div><div>Which raised the question of how to proceed with Roy's WHOIS statement that he worked hard on and for which he wanted NCUC endorsement. So since he said he had to submit it today and was awaiting word, and a number of folks have said yes both publicly and privately and nobody has said no, I replied on NCSG-discuss,</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div>On Feb 20, 2013, at 1:32 PM, William Drake <<a href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch">william.drake@uzh.ch</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi Roy<br><div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">The privacy-data protection sub group of the 'thick' Whois<br>Working Group will meet again tomorrow. Tomorrow I will be<br>submisting this Annex document as an individual (although I do not<br>claim full credit for this document) pending endorsement by the NCUC</blockquote></blockquote><br></div><div>It having received nothing but favorable responses from members, you can indeed submit this as an NCUC-endorsed statement, and we can tweet and post it to the website as well. Thanks much for your great work on this, much appreciated. And per Avri's and Ed's messages, if the NCSG PC would like to give it an SG endorsement as well, all the better!</div></div></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>That being the case, we should publicize his hard work and our sign of life. Wilson, can you put it on the NCUC website, SVP?</div><div><br></div><div>Also, I think this was discussed once but don't recall the answer--- who has the Twitter account <a href="https://twitter.com/NCUC">https://twitter.com/NCUC</a> ? Brenden, is that you? How can we share access to it? It's not obvious at this point that the Communications Team will develop any mo, so in the meanwhile I guess we should define an alternative, maybe involving the EC and our reps in the NCSG PC…? Once it's on the website, it should get tweeted...</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div><br></div><div>Bill</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>*PS: as a reminder on the PC issue, I append below an earlier message; of course, subsequent discussions/actions etc. bear on this as well.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div style="margin: 0px; "><span style="font-family: Helvetica; "><b>From: </b></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica; ">William Drake <<a href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch">william.drake@uzh.ch</a>><br></span></div><div style="margin: 0px; "><span style="font-family: Helvetica; "><b>Subject: </b></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica; "><b>NCUC Policy Committee</b><br></span></div><div style="margin: 0px; "><span style="font-family: Helvetica; "><b>Date: </b></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica; ">December 14, 2012 11:52:42 AM GMT+01:00<br></span></div><div style="margin: 0px; "><span style="font-family: Helvetica; "><b>To: </b></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica; ">"<a href="mailto:EC-NCUC@ipjustice.org">EC-NCUC@ipjustice.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:ec-ncuc@ipjustice.org">ec-ncuc@ipjustice.org</a>><br></span></div><br><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi<div><br></div><div>Another thread to lay on your tables for whenever you have time to respond...</div><div><div><b><br></b></div><div>The current, wildly out of date NCUC charter <a href="http://ncuc.org/page/charter-1">http://ncuc.org/page/charter-1</a> says that we have a PC that, inter alia,</div><div><br></div><div><i>shall be responsible for determining and liaising with the NCSG Councilors on the positions of the Constituency on matters of domain name and ICANN policy and procedure to the Generic Names Supporting Organization of ICANN (the GNSO), the GNSO Council, and other ICANN policy committees, working groups, advisory committees, and policy forums.<br><br>The Policy Committee shall consist of 2 (minimum) to 5 (maximum) NCUC representatives. Each representative should ideally be an ‘expert’ in each of ICANN’s policy mandated areas. The Chair of NCUC will also be included in the PC but will not act as its Chair.<br><br></i><div><i>Shall be elected for two-year terms by the NCUC Executive Committee. Any member can nominate and be nominated in the PC. Members can serve on the PC for no more than two consecutive terms.<br></i></div><div><br></div></div><div>In my four years as a Councilor, This was never a real thing. I recall conversations about how we were supposed to have a PC, and there was a brief period in late 2011 in which we started using a listserv and determined that the committee consisted of the 3 elected NCUC GNSO Councilors at the time (Bill, Mary, Wendy) and Konstantinos, Milton, and Robin. But we never used it much, and certainly did not attempt to determine the positions of the NCUC for Councilors, who normally vote their conscience unless there's a particularly strong group view. The main rationale for having it seemed to be transparency, talking policy on a publicly archived list <a href="http://mailman.ctyme.com/listinfo/pc-ncuc">http://mailman.ctyme.com/listinfo/pc-ncuc</a>. In any event, while the people nominally on the PC talked all the time and collaborated on policy anyway, we didn't really make use of the structure per se.</div><div><br></div><div>When I started thinking about charter revisions, my initial instinct was to kill it. After all, if we can't populate and operate it, then we shouldn't nominally have it and be operating out of synch with our charter. I still lean in this direction a little.</div><div><br></div><div>BUT, another option would be to make it a thing. I've proposed that Avri and Mary represent us on the NCSG-PC. They could also be on the NCUC-PC, and the bridge between the two. And we could add a few other folks who'd like to be engaged in real, substantive issues work— helping stimulate and coordinate dialogue and consensus formation with our Councilors, members on GNSO working groups, etc.; ensuring that the constituency gets out responses to Public Comment periods and other position statements; and so on.</div><div><br></div><div>I guess a main argument for this might be that it'd promote group identity and collaboration without us having to wait and see all the time if NPOC has an opinion and then negotiate a common stance etc. When they're able to come to a view and we can do things at the SG level great, that's more useful in the GNSO structure, but as a constituency we should also be prepared to react quickly and freely whenever we want/need.</div><div><br></div><div>So another thing to consider…we'll talk about all these a bit in LA as well.</div></div></div></div></body></html>