Proposed disposition - Re: Sinclair comments - Members review of Draft Proposed NCSG Charter

[Avri Doria]

On 2 May 2010, at 23:40, Rosemary Sinclair wrote:

> my only purpose was to provide you with some input based on my views


Thank you, and of course it is welcome.

In order to make sure that everyone (even those without the ability to read Microsoft word) can see the edits you are proposing I have outlined them below.  Please feel free to correct my rendition (please got back to Rosemary's email to get the primary source on her comments, I have not included her attachment in this email)

I have also included my suggested handling of each of these proposals.  Please comment!

I have not included the edits that a purely for clarification on those that are corrections of typos etc.

RS-1. Section 1.1 (deletion)

It provides a voice and representation in ICANN processes to: non-profit organizations that serve non-commercial interests; nonprofit services such as education, philanthropies, consumer protection, community organizing, promotion of the arts, public interest policy advocacy, children's welfare, religion, scientific research, and human rights; families or individuals who register domain names for noncommercial personal use; and Internet users who are primarily concerned with the noncommercial, public interest aspects of domain name policy and are not represented in ICANN through membership in another Supporting Organization or GNSO Stakeholder Group

Delete:  and are not represented in ICANN through membership in another Supporting Organization or GNSO Stakeholder Group

Proposed Handling:  while this is currently under discussion in the section on membership, it is probably unnecessary here.  Ok, Delete.

RS-2. Title Section 1.2 (replacement)

Replace: Principles

with: Principles for Leaders and members

RS-3. Section 1.2

Under heading c) Service standards for elected officers.

Include the words from original Trans Charter as first paragraph.

Service standards for leadership positions include impartiality, accountablitiy and avoidance of conflicts of interest.

Proposed Handling: Ok, Replace

RS-4 Section 1.2 (additon)

Add a section on member behavior similar to eg 1.3.3. from the CSG Transitional Charter; 1.2 Registrar Transitional Charter

d) Member behaviour 

Behavioural expectations of all NCSG members, including without limitation: adhering to ICANN Bylaws/Policies; supporting the bottom-up consensue model; treating others with dignity, respect, courtesy and civility; listening attentively and seeking to understand others; acting with honesty, sincerity and integrity; and maintaining community good standing.

Proposed Handling:  The word Civility has be egregiously misused within ICANN to control the behavior of others.  I suggest adding the section but dropping the word 'civility' which has become an ICANN keyword for suppressing dissent - if we learned to treat each other with dignity, respect and courtesy, that should be be enough - civility add nothing to this list other then the notion of prevailing attitude.  The word civility also has a strong colonialist implication.

I would also suggest dropping "and maintaining community good standing." as it also implies a notion of self-suppressing dissent based on trying to fit in with those who hold the community's predominant viewpoint.

RS-5 Section 2.1 (structural change)

Suggest for maintaining the concept of Constituencies that are Board approved.

Proposed Handling:  Not make this change unless there is apparent consensus in the membership for doing so.  this same disposition would pertain to all other insertion of the word constituency except for 7.3.

One Question that was brought up was what would happen if the Board approved a constituency in the meantime.  In the event both that happened and this charter was approved with the constituency clause, the transition mechanism would transform that Constituency into an Interest-group in the same way it would transform the NCUC into an Interest-group (section 7.3).

One issue that was brought up (and referenced in comments section 7.3)was the relationship of Interest-groups to the funding model.  Since at least 2 of the SG already are not using the constituency model, I think this is a broader topic then this charter, but is one that would fall under the responsibility of the FC.  Perhaps adding a bullet to the FC obligations (in 2.6) such as:

o Working with ICANN finance officers, Insure that the NCSG and Interest-groups receive fair and equivalent financial support from ICANN.

RS-5  2.2.5 On New Individual Members (Deletion)

3. An Individual who is employed by or a member of a large noncommercial organization (universities, colleges, large NGOs) and it is too complicated or the Individual lacks the standing to get his/her organization to join on an organizational basis. This person can join NCSG in his or her individual capacity. The Executive Committee shall, at its discretion, determine limits to the total number of Individual members who can join from any single organization (provided the limit shall apply to all Organizations equally).

Delete:   and it is too complicated or the Individual lacks the standing to get his/her organization to join on an organizational basis. This

Proposed Handling:  Accept the deletion in principle, but change:

An Individual who is employed by or a member of a large noncommercial organization

to

An Individual who is employed by or a member of a large non-member noncommercial organization

RS-6 2.4.3  (question)

Can a chair serve a maximum of 2 consecutive years?

Answer: Yes.

Proposed Handling: No change

RS-7  2.5.1 PC Composition (question)

Is the single representative from a proposed Interest-group an observer.

Answer:  It is not written that way.  Since the PC does not make decisions, but rather makes recommendation of a rough consensus basis it did not seem necessary to limit them to observer only status.

Proposed Handling: No change

RS-8 3.1 NCSG Allocation (addition)

to:

No more then two GNSO Council Representative can be declared resident of the same geographic region as defined by ICANN.

add:

To the maximum extent possible, no more then two GNSO Council Representative can be declared resident of the same geographic region as defined by ICANN.

Proposed Handling:  While this is a problem in the GNSO Council because most of the other SG are not very diverse from a geographic basis, this has not been a problem in NCSG.  However, since this rule is more stringent then the rules in the Bylaws, adding the phrase may be ok.
Allow the addition.

RS-9 3.3.1  Participation:

Question on: unless they give prior notice to the NCSG-PC and GNSO Council. Should provision be made in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures for absentee or proxy mechanisms, the Council Representatives will be responsible for notifying the NCSG Chair with sufficient notice to allow the Executive Committee or Policy Committee, as required by those rules, to take advantage of such provisions.

The reference is to upcoming GNSO Council Operating Principle changes.  I put this clause in conditionally (i.e. "Should provision be made in the GNSO Council Operating Precedures ..".)

RS recommend inserting a "where possible" qualifier.

Proposed Handling:

Replace: 

Should provision be made in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures for absentee or proxy mechanisms, the Council Representatives will be responsible for notifying the NCSG Chair with sufficient notice to allow the Executive Committee or Policy Committee, as required by those rules, to take advantage of such provisions.

with: 
 
Should provision be made in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures for absentee or proxy mechanisms, the Council Representatives will be responsible, where possible, for notifying the NCSG Chair with sufficient notice to allow the Executive Committee or Policy Committee, as required by those rules, to take advantage of such provisions.

RS-10 4.3  Proportional Voting (question)

It must be clear that a perosn has joined as an Individual or as an Organisation to prevent individuals later claiming additional votes on the basis of being part of an organisation – the Organisation must be the member for the additional votes to apply

I have seen this distinction in operation before and I’m not sure it’s a good idea to allow size to determine voting power …..

Response:  The membership is clearly delineated in the membership list and a person who is a representative for an organization is clearly called out.  In assigning votes for formal procedures, the official membership list is used ad one cannot place more votes then their membership category.

I leave the question of whether it a good idea to the membership.  This is an idea that is carried over from the earlier proposed charter and has ben the tradition in NCUC since before the individual membership category was added in 2009.

Proposed Handling:  Leave proportional voting.

Add a line:  Membership classification will be based on the official membership list, which must include the category of membership and must be verified before any vote.


Thanks again for the comments.

a.