<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>On Sep 21, 2013, at 4:53 AM, Rafik Dammak <<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">Hi Bill,<div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div><br></div><div><b>1) Policy Committee</b></div><div><br></div><div>A NCUC PC list serve still exists, maintained by Robin. <<a href="mailto:pc-ncuc@ipjustice.org" target="_blank">pc-ncuc@ipjustice.org</a>> We should create a new one alongside the others at <a href="http://lists.ncuc.org/" target="_blank">lists.ncuc.org</a>, and boot up the PC in a manner consistent with our extant bylaws V. All councilors originating in NCUC; "Members...who are serving on GNSO Working Groups, ICANN Advisory Committees, Presidential committees and other policy bodies (standing or ad hoc) within the ICANN process [I'd interpret this to include the two NCUC reps to the NCSG PC}; and "Any NCUC delegates to the NCSG Executive Committee (in an ex officio capacity)," e.g. I'd join.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The PC adopts positions, replies to public comment periods, etc. For issues that will go to the GNSO, the Councilors and two delegates carry the position into the NCSG PC for sorting out with NPOC and possible adoption as NCSG positions.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The precise composition of the PC could be tweaked in the revision.</div><div><br></div><div>thoughts…?</div><div><br></div></div></blockquote><div>since the purpose is to have NCUC more assertive regarding policy and developing its policy positions within NCSG and with or without NPOC, the PC has an important role, hopefully with chair having experience in term of policy, it is quite critical to have the committee active and responsive to public comments periods, and in particular starting the process of drafting earlier to avid being in emergency mode and rushing for consensus . that will help the EC to focus on its main task and in the going foundational and institutional building. The NCUC PC can coordinate the work of NCUC within NCSG PC .</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Yes, my feeling is even if we act whenever possible within the GNSO Council as a SG, this should not preclude NCUC from maintaining its own identity via policy statements etc. For one thing, there has to be a rationale for members to be members, and taking stances is #1. In this we don't always have to carry NPOC—which I feel we've been pushed to do by a few vets that want the SG to become the main focus. That'd be fine if SIC had allowed us to abolish constituencies and have an integrated SG, but they didn't, at least not yet. So until that happens, we should revitalize NCUC policy engagement, and we don't have an agreed mechanism. Before last year rough consensus and quick checking among the most engaged members (often after taking to the members list) was sufficient, but this EC said it didn't like that and it needs to be formalized, so now we have nothing. So either rebirth the PC or do something else, we have to resolve it… </div><div><br></div><div>I will add that personally, I feel like our priority should be to consolidate what we have, engage our members, and show signs of life with policy engagements etc. within the wider community. I think this takes priority over running around trying to add five new bodies here, three there to the membership. All for outreach, but not if it eats so much bandwidth we don't do what's really important. Most members are disengaged, adding new disengaged members doesn't help, Fadi's not going to listen to us more because we have 330 members rather than 300 (unless the thirty are major NGOS that get active, anyway). </div><div><br></div><div>We need to take a good hard look at who's already in the tent and find ways to press their buttons.</div><div> <blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: auto; "><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div></div><div><b>2) Constituency Day</b></div><div><br></div><div>For CD, I propose this tentative schedule</div>
<div><br></div><div>9:00-9:15<span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Welcome etc</div><div><br></div><div>9:15-9:45<span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Pending Elections</div><div><br></div><div>9:45-10:40<span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Policy Committee and Bylaws</div>
<div><br></div><div>10:40-11:00<span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Coffee</div><div><br></div><div>11:00-11:45<span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Visit of the ATRT II Team</div><div><br></div><div>11:45-12:30<span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>AOB (please advise of items to cover. do we want to talk to GACers again? I'd suggest only if we have a specific agenda, not more "getting to know you.")</div>
<div><br></div><div>Reactions, please...</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></blockquote><div>yes for preparing for ATRT meeting, and seeing the latest discussion, we should support our represenattive there and psuh for issues we have in mind regarding staff influence,reconsideration process etc. maybe presenting Milton paper (I am kidding :)) </div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Yes, we were manifestly, embarrassingly unprepared for the last meeting, which is why I tried to cut it's time down. Me bilateraling with Brian is not what should be happening.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div>we start to have this contact with GAC and reach them, maybe we can find another way to continue that even informally and before they got stuck in long process of drafting communique, we can add other representative like from EC or even NTIA?</div>
<div>we can remove that from the agenda if we setup an informal meeting before (if it is possible)</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Meeting outside CD is an idea, maybe with the new lady from the EC. But again, people would have to be prepared, with an agenda, not hey how's it going nice to meet you.<br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div></div><div><b>3) Friday 15 November</b></div><div><br></div><div>I did chat informally with Olga Cavalli the possibility of us doing something substantive together on Friday 15 if we don't do a bylaws meeting. Whoever got there in time could come. Both sides need to decide if it's worth pursuing. We were thinking something combining the South School of IG + NCUC might be fun, like a half day meeting off site (e.g. at university) geared toward civil society outreach, like what we did in Durban. Anyone have any thoughts on this option?</div>
<div><br></div></div></blockquote><div>as I replied before and with your latest updates, I support such event and I think that we wont get stuck into logistics thing but we can focus on the progam and content (and some outreach effort) </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></div><div><blockquote type="cite">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">I don't recall the relevant provisions but if you say so, then ok, either it waits to the 2014 election or we work magic with SIC. I think there's no point in continuing to go back and forth debating precise timings ex ante, we have to get into the process, see how it develops, and how that works with the rest of what we have going on.<br>
</div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><div>I think the ongoing consensus is to start working in the bylaw, cooperating with the staff to make the process smooth and catching the SIC to move forward . the earlier we get their feedback , we can fix the contentious points and find agreement</div>
<div>I am not sure that the SIC will keep the same members every years, need to check.</div><div>we have some old drafts, the new setup committee will do the work of merging them ,editing etc and tweaking where needed and discussing with ICANN staff. we can have update about the work at CD .</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><br></div><div>
<br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">I notice NPOC is producing policy statements being endorsed by the NCSG PC and we don't even have a real means to do the same. </div>
</div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>to put things in context, NPOC produced one policy statement for something they care about, updating their bylaw as they told us in durban . it is legitimate concern for them. in fact, for whois and other statements it is mostly our members doing the drafting and NCSG PC endorsing, we need to coordinate that effort and improve it. </div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>This is my point. I wish our members would make a NCUC statement before submerging themselves in a NCSG statement and carrying NPOC free riders.</div><div><br></div><div>BD</div><div><br></div></div></body></html>