Update to the charter based on comments

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

(resend as I did not see it on the discuss list)

I have updated the charter based on the comments received and the discussions.  I include below a notated copy of the message I sent a few days ago indicating the disposition of  the comments.  I will update the comments page on the wiki a little later.

The updated charter is Revision 26  in:

https://st.icann.org/ncsg-ec/index.cgi?ncsg_proposed_charter

The final version for the vote will be found in:

https://st.icann.org/ncsg-ec/index.cgi?ncsg_proposed_charter_final_for_vote  

This version will contain any updates that come in the next day or two and will be the one referenced in the ballot.


The review is scheduled to end after tomorrow (ends when 8 May any time zone ends) with the vote to start next week.  The vote is scheduled to last about a month in order to make sure that everyone has a chance to vote - as the approval of charter requires that 2/3 of the member votes, i.e. 181 out of a possible 302 using the proposed NCSG weighted voting structure, it will be critical that every member register their vote.  Note, if the ballot does not pass, we will go back to the drawing board to figure out what we got wrong in this charter.  More details on the voting process will be available shortly.

So please take one last look and see if i got the edits right and if i missed or mussed anything.

Thanks

a.



On 3 May 2010, at 12:07, Avri Doria wrote:


Included all typos notated in Rosemary's edit and a few others that were pointed out.


> 
> 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.

done

> 
> RS-2. Title Section 1.2 (replacement)
> 
> Replace: Principles
> 
> with: Principles for Leaders and members

done

> 
> 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

done
> 
> 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.
> 

done

> 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.

done

> 
> 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

done

Further comments were received:

From: 	Andrew A. Adams:

I think this needs some careful wording to avoid confusion in the two uses of 
the word member here (One refers to the individual being a member of an 
organisation, the other to the organisation not being a member of NCSG). I 
think this wording might cause confusion, so perhaps the wording:

An individual who is employed by or is a member of a large non-commercial 
organisation (which is not already a member of NCSG).

Also, I would like a note making it plain that being employed by an 
organisation which has legitimate grounds for being an NCSG member does not 
preclude someone joining as an individual member on their own rights. So, for 
example, I am employed by Meiji University (meiji.ac.jp) in Japan, a 
non-profit private university. Meiji is entitled to join NCSG under the 
proposed new constitution, but so am I. While I _could_ join under the above 
clause I am a member of NCUC on the basis of my own domain registration 
(a-cubed.info) and also as an academic working on the area of information 
ethics, which includes IANA and DNS related issues. I'd hate to be forced out 
because my employer joined NCSG as an organisation.

Avri wrote:

> The topic of someone being an individual member as well as a member by virtue of belonging to an organization is challenging for me.


> 
>> You misunderstood my concern. I absolutely agree with Milton that an 
>> individual should not be accepted as in the SG as an individual by right of 
>> employment/organisational membership when that organisation is also a member. 
>> What I was concerned with was ensuring that someone who is an employee or 
>> member of one or more organisations who are organisational members of NCSG, 
>> but who also satisfies personally one or more of the other pre-requisites for 
>> membership is not barred because their organisation is a member.
>> 
>> So, to use myself as an example again. I am employed by Meiji University and 
>> a "member" (*) of the Open Rights Group. Both of these organisations satisfy 
>> the organisational membership criteria, I believe.
>> 
>> However, I also personally satisfy the individual membership criteria in ways 
>> other than being an employee/member of these organisations: I am a personal 
>> domain name registrant and I do research into information ethics (academics 
>> in this field in particular, and related ones such as IT Law, computer 
>> science, business might well be worth particularly identifying as suitable 
>> members whether or not their University is a member as a non-profit 
>> educational institution).
>> 
>> What I wanted to ensure was that my right to individual membership is not 
>> over-ridden by my status as employee/member of an organisation.
>> 
>> This could be fixed by separating out three types of membership:
>> 
>> 1. Organisational Membership
>> 2. Individual Membership as representative of an organisation
>> 3. Individual Membership as an individual with a clear _personal_ interest in 
>> the domain name system
>> 
>> Class 2 can be limited by decision of the EC to a maximum number of 
>> individuals representing any particular organisation and denied for anyone 
>> whose organisation is in Class 1. However, individual membership under class 
>> 3 is still allowed, even where an individual happens to be an employee/member 
>> of an NCSG member organisation.

> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> What I wanted to ensure was that my right to individual membership is
>> not over-ridden by my status as employee/member of an organisation.
>> This could be fixed by separating out three types of membership:
> 
> OK, I get it. I support this. 
> 
>> Class 2 can be limited by decision of the EC to a maximum number of
>> individuals representing any particular organisation and denied for
>> anyone whose organisation is in Class 1. However, individual membership under
>> class 3 is still allowed, even where an individual happens to be an
>> employee/member of an NCSG member organisation.
> 
> Does this language work for you? Our concern is that a large organization might try to "take over" by ordering its employees or members to join as individuals. This "threat" has always been purely hypothetical and some have been more worried about it than others. So we've put in a check by the EC in case something fishy seems to be up. 
> 

Resolution:  added

An individual who is a member or employee of a noncommercial organization, which is itself a member of the NCSG, may apply for or retain membership in the NCSG under the first two criteria for individual membership.  Such membership is subject to Executive Committee review.


> 
> RS-6 2.4.3  (question)
> 
> Can a chair serve a maximum of 2 consecutive years?
> 
> Answer: Yes.
> 
> Proposed Handling: No change

No change made.

> 
> 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


After reading carefully including the later section on Observers, I realized this was inconsistent.  I made the suggested correction.

> 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.


done

> 
> 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.

done

> 
> 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.
> 
> 

Added to 4.2

Membership classification for voting will be based on the official membership list, which must include the category of membership and must be verified before any vote.

However, this addition made me aware that we did not state in the charter that a public membership list would be maintained anywhere, so I added the following to 2.6 Procedural rules (under membership)

A full and public membership list including the membership classification, and for organizational members the name of the primary representative, will be maintained on the NCSG web site.  The NCSG Chair wil be responsible  for updating and correcting the membership list.

Note: Did not change the proportional voting scheme.

----

Added section on the NCSG Chair as the charter spoke of the role and of the chair's election, but had never described the role.  Strange oversight for me to make.

Added:

NCSG Chair

The NCSG Chair is elected by the general NCSG membership for a one year term and is limited to two consecutive terms.  The NCSG chair is responsible for carrying out the executive functions of the NCSG under the Executive Committee's oversight according to ICANN, GNSO and NCSG mission and principles.