[Bylaws] Process Re-visioning

[Arun Mohan Sukumar]

Most folks seem to be converging on Monday the 31st 11:30 Am to 1 pm US
Eastern Time.. Rafik, can you sit in on at least a bit of the call?
Alternatively, if Viktor and Amr can make it for the 9:30 to 11 slot (Remmy
is travelling then?) that is also an option..

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Arun Mohan Sukumar <arunmohan.s at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Bill's suggestions are comprehensive, and we certainly need more folks on
> the call to discuss some of these broad changes.. Doodle
> http://doodle.com/ncngb2w5tecmn3as
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 6:26 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> Since my suggestion that we try to figure out where we’re going before we
>> set off hasn’t generated much response, let me see if I can get the ball
>> rolling.  Here’s a few thoughts:
>>
>> On Aug 25, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Remmy Nweke <remmyn at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > As a starting point, what about having team members reply with points
>> under the following sorts of headings:
>> >
>> *> 1.  Overarching Issues (holistic view of what’s needed)*
>>
>>
>> a.  Clarify the interrelationship between the constituency and
>> stakeholder group levels, e.g. with respect to making policy statements and
>> process conformity.
>>
>> b.  Establishment as a legal entity under US tax law for the purpose of
>> receiving and reporting financial contributions and preserving financial
>> independence should anything in the accountability process lead to any
>> presumptions about the status of resources held by parts of the Member.
>>
>> c.  Clarify and strengthen the functional performance standards of
>> elected and appointed representatives.
>>
>> d.  Eliminate all references to charging dues for membership.
>>
>> e.  Decide about “good standing” criteria.  Would we want to formally do
>> an annual check-in procedure like NCSG?  It adds a lot of work, and might
>> not be needed on an intra-constituency basis.
>>
>> f.  Change all references to an NCUC “charter” to “bylaws” (no idea how
>> that happened)
>>
>> >
>> *> 2.  NCSG Charter Conformity Issues*
>>
>>
>> II. Organization and Structure
>>
>> a.  It should say that The membership consist of
>> "NCSG member" organizations and “NCSG" individual members that meet
>> the Membership criteria and complete the processes set out in Section III,
>> below, and subsequently receive a notice of acceptance from the Executive
>> Committee Chair, [eliminate the following] or the Secretary acting with the
>> approval of  the Chair.  [i.e. to make clear one joins NCSG and then
>> selects a constituency if desired, rather than joining the constituency
>> directly without joining the SG]
>>
>> III. Membership
>>
>> b.  Make clear that organizational reps to NCSG and NCUC need not be the
>> same
>>
>> c.  Make clear that Eligible organizations are "NCSG Organizational
>> members” and Eligible Individuals are "Individual NCSG members”
>>
>> IV. Executive Committee
>>
>> d.  If the NCSG chair is an NCUC member, s/he serves in an ex
>> officio (nonvoting) capacity on the NCUC Executive Committee.  [we do this
>> now but it’s not stated]
>>
>> VI. Voting
>>
>> e.  Our bylaws say Small Organizations shall have one vote, but the NCSG
>> Charter says they get two.
>>
>> f.  Our bylaws say Large Organizations shall have two votes, but the NCSG
>> Charter says they get four.
>>
>> [we have in fact followed the NCSG model during NCUC elections, for
>> conformity]
>>
>> g.  Our bylaws say "Individual persons (“Individual Members”) that are
>> Members in Good Standing of the Constituency are entitled to have one
>> vote.”  But we do not actually determine “good standing,” we send the
>> ballot to everyone who is in the data base and just accept a simply
>> majority vote.  So per above this needs clarification.
>>
>> VIII. Changes to this Charter
>>
>> h.  Our bylaws say "A petition of ten (10) percent of the
>> then-current members shall be sufficient for putting a charter amendment on
>> the ballot…”  The NCSG Charter says “Proposals to amend this charger may be
>> submitted by five percent the then-current members eligible to vote…”
>>  [does this need to be aligned?]
>>
>> >
>> *> 3.  Discrepancies with Current Practices to Close*
>>
>>
>> a.  Eliminate dues references
>>
>> b.  Decide if there should be a Policy Committee and if so how it is
>> constituted.  Normally we by default do things at NCSG level, but there
>> have been times when NPOC didn’t agree to something and/or we wanted to
>> make our our statement and it wasn’t clear in the absence of a PC how to do
>> it.  We opted for a general consultation with members and then the chair
>> said yes based on “sense of the list” but that’s not an appropriate model.
>> Even if the PC rarely is “convened,” it should probably exist so we are not
>> legally mute.  I would suggest that for this purpose the PC could comprise
>> all elected and appointed persons (e.g. the EC, appointees to the NCSG EC
>> and PC, and NCSG Councilors who happen to be NCUC members), operating in
>> consultation with members if at all possible (how much depends if it’s time
>> sensitive).
>>
>> c.  Replace the Secretary-Treasurer with just a Treasurer, who should
>> have annual financial reporting obligations.
>>
>> d.  The bylaws say
>>
>> >
>> *> 4.  “Would be Nice” Improvements*
>>
>>
>> IV.  Executive Committee
>>
>> a.  We might consider establishing a Vice Chair, so there will be at
>> least two people who really feel responsible for getting things done, and
>> the work can be shared.
>>
>> b.  The bylaws say, "Voting on the EC on the matters listed in section
>> IV.F below. All EC votes called by the Chair must be responded to in ten
>> days. Regional representatives who fail to vote within that time limit four
>> times in a row are considered to have resigned their office as per VII.B.2
>> below.”  We have had constant problems of non-responsiveness over the
>> years, so I would suggest this be tightened to seven days and twice.
>>
>> c.  On the Google doc in 2012 I made a number of suggestions regarding
>> the EC (in red) that I’d argue merit discussion:
>>
>> *EC members shall work closely on an ongoing basis with the Chair and any
>> other elected officials on NCUC’s overall strategy and its implementation.
>>
>> *The EC will hold o​fficial m​embership meetings, either in person or by
>> teleconference, at least four times a year.  [This could be twice or
>> thrice, but more important would be a requirement that EC members attend
>> and if they miss two in a row they are out. This has been a problem.]
>>
>> *EC regional representatives shall endeavor to recruit new members from
>> their regions, and to maintain periodic communication with them in order
>> to promote engagement, particularly in Constituency and Stakeholder Group
>> votes.
>>
>> *Appoint and coordinate with members who will lead the performance of
>> necessary functional roles, or perform these themselves, i.e. coordination
>> of inreach and member relations, coordination of outreach, and maintenance
>> of the website and other electronic platforms. If suitable and committed
>> members cannot be identified to lead the performance of these functions,
>> EC members are encouraged to take on some area of functional responsibility
>> in the interim. [As the regional reps often have not worked with their
>> regions much and as there are functional tasks that need to be performed,
>> it might be desirable for them to be assigned functional roles that really
>> need be performed.]
>>
>> *The chair should establish ballots for voting w​ith the active support
>> of the EC and any inreach/membership director that may be appointed. At
>> present the responsibility for administering the election falls entirely on
>> the Chair, and more recently, Maryam and Tapani’s volunteering.  This is
>> not fair or sustainable.
>>
>> * If an EC member consistently fails to meet her/his
>> responsibilities, the other EC members shall consult the person in question
>> with an eye to rectifying the situation. If no solution can be found, the
>> other EC members may, on a unanimous vote, remove the member from office
>> and appoint an interim replacement who will serve until the next election
>> cycle.
>>
>> Ok…more than enough to chew on for one message.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Head, Cyber Initiative
> Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi
> http://amsukumar.tumblr.com
> +91-9871943272
>



-- 
Head, Cyber Initiative
Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi
http://amsukumar.tumblr.com
+91-9871943272
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/bylaws/attachments/20150827/1635dd8e/attachment-0001.html>