[Bylaws] Status?

[William Drake]

Hi Timothe

As has been mentioned a number of times on the main members list and at Constituency Day meetings, this initiative has been on hold for a number of reasons.  Two efforts to get a team going stalled from lack of a facilitator and significant engagement.  I then reach out to several veterans including the folks who did the last version and said look why don’t we just take a week and do this, and the view was why bother when what we’d really like to do is see if we can’t move to the integrated SG model we advocated at the dawn of NCSG rather than doubling down on the dysfunctional constituency silo model.  So I started poking around with some board members and asking do you think it’s conceivable we could ever get the board to accept that, and got varying responses, some encouraging us to make a proposal and some saying that’d probably set off a more divisive holy war do you think it’s worth it.  Then the GNSO Review process was launched, in which context the structures of interest aggregation in the GNSO will be debated.  The initial draft from the consultant was full of agenda-driven nonsense, which we and others have pushed back on, and we’re now waiting to see what the revision will look like.  The consultant are to provide this in late April, and then the community review team will provide input, there’ll be a public comment period, etc.  By the BA meeting I would hope we will be able to have a more focused discussion, which together with the pending churn of the Board Structural Improvements Committee should provide clarity on the larger picture going forward.  If the upshot is that we are permanently wedded to a system that basically just wastes peoples’ time and distracts energies from policy work etc, then I would be happy to try once again to work with whomever is willing to spend some cycles to redo the Bylaws and align them with the current realities of the constituency’s role in the SG.  But we’re not there yet, and expending the time now while things are up  in the air and people are swamped with other items doesn’t seem so sensible.  I don’t believe the board is thinking about this or in a position to act anytime soon with all else that’s going on in parallel.

As to quitting: anyone can quit anytime.  It’s a volunteer association like any civil society network or professional association, not a penal colony.  If someone says drop me from the membership list, for whatever reason, we drop them, end of story.  This has never been an issue, but if and when we do a revision I suppose we could put that in writing if people think it’s helpful.

Best

Bill

> On Mar 31, 2015, at 4:41 PM, Timothe Litt <litt at ACM.ORG> wrote:
> 
> There has been no activity on this list since oct 2013.  http://www.ncuc.org/governance/bylaws/ <http://www.ncuc.org/governance/bylaws/> states that "new version expected by end of 2013".  There was an off-list indication of some activity last August (2014), with a target date of Oct 2014.  But nothing happened.
> 
> I assume that this effort is dead.
> 
> In case it's ever revived, I note that the current charter has no provision for an individual member to resign.  Closest provisions:
> 
> Section III 4 F says the exec committee "shall create procedural rules for existing members to maintain their good standing."
> 
> Section VII talks about Exec and Policy committee resignations.
> 
> The NCSG charter 2.2.9 allows for someone who no longer meets the criteria to resign by notifying the NCSG EC; it does not allow for resignation on other grounds.  This is distinct from the "inactive membership" category.
> 
> With organizational members, the situation is similar.  And existing official representative can "resign and submt in writing the name of a new Official Representative."  I don't see a provision for an organizational member to withdraw from either organization.
> 
> It seems that once inducted into Nirvana, one can't get out voluntarily.    This oversight should be corrected.  
> 
> Although no organization likes to lose members, it is reasonable to predict that some may wish to leave due to irreconcilable differences with its direction, choices or the belief that it does not effectively represent them.  Such members must have the right to disassociate their names from the organization.
> 
> -- 
> Timothe Litt
> ACM Distinguished Engineer
> --------------------------
> This communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's views,
> if any, on the matters discussed. 
> _______________________________________________
> Bylaws mailing list
> Bylaws at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/bylaws

*********************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org
Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q
*********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/bylaws/attachments/20150401/c51eb407/attachment.html>