Debbie's comments on the charter review

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

For some reason i am having trouble getting email from the NCUC-discuss list at the moment.  Please copy me on my acm account  with replies until i get my LTU email account working again.


I was sent a copy of your message:

Thanks for the review.

> Avri,
> 
> I tried to make updates to the charter on the wiki, but it looks like
> they were not saved.  So, I have placed my comments in the attached Word
> document, adding to the document last edited by Rosemary. I am happy to
> post my comments on the latest version you distributed today, if you
> could give me instructions on how to update the document on the wiki :)

At this point since I am making negotiated edits based on the discussions among the membership, i have locked the file for editing.  With only one day until the review period closes I am not allowing edits that have not been floated on the list and have not gotten consensus, albeit passive, from those participating in the dialogue.  As with Rosemary's recommended changes, I floated my proposed handling on the list, got push back on my approach on a few of them, we discussed the changes and then this morning I made the edits. 

Likewise with any edits proposed today I will follow a similar process.  I have commented below on your proposed edits.

When the review period is over on 9 May, I will produce the version that I think reflects the consensus of the group.  The vote will determine whether I am right and I have gathered the consensus of the group and whether we have reached a charter that people can live with.  Of course I expect there will be those who vote against as well as those who vote in favor.  What I am most concerned about is that everyone votes.

If I am wrong and the charter fails to pass the vote, then the NCSG will go back to work, and do some more editing and try and find the missing consensus point.

> 
> 
> About my comments:  My concern is that we should provide for
> constituencies and I have inserted constituencies throughout.  The Board
> continues to recognize the constituency structure and has not indicated
> the level of support and recognition that will be given to Interest
> Groups. Since it remains unclear what resources, standing and
> recognition interests groups will have within the ICANN community (by
> the Board, Staff, Work Groups/Teams, ACs, other constituencies and SGs,
> etc.), I think we should continue to recognize and support
> constituencies and not dissolve them in this charter until the NCSG
> receives clarity on that point.  I think we may be doing the NCUC and
> non commercial users a disservice by converting constituencies into
> Interest Groups without considering the ripple effect.  While those of
> you who have been involved with ICANN leadership much longer than I may
> have spoken with Board and staff about this issue, the Interest Group
> concept is missing from the messaging and documents about ICANN
> structure and engagement.  


As was discussed when Rosemary made the same suggestion, the Board has left this up to us.  If this is what the Stakeholder group wants, and this is what I am understanding the consensus to be.  The Board wants to see the charter thatNCSG wants to propose.  The Board has made this very clear in discussion we have had with them - they are not limiting us to the Staff's interpretation of the previous Board's viewpoint.

I also point out, that 2 Board approved Stakeholder Groups, albeit transitional, already have charters that do not include Board approved Constituencies.  But that is in sense beside the point.  It is up to the consensus of the NCSG membership.

Additionally as Rafik mentioned in the previous discussion o tis point, in the Stakeholder/Constituencies Work Team, they have left the whole issue of support open for both Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies - the choice being a bottom up choice within each group.

If I find that after you email, the consensus of the group has changed and people agree with you that we should have constituencies instead of Interest-Groups, I will change the charter accordingly.  However, at this point without some evidence of a changed consensus, I cannot make this particular change.

As I said it is up to the NCSG  to present the charter it wants to the Board.  Should they decide that they want us to have constituencies, they will send it back telling us so and we can discuss and negotiate with them if we wish.  On the other hand if they accept the charter, as I expect they will, then it is up to the Board, and the staff acting on their will, to make sure that our Stakeholder Group with its Interest-groups get the proper and equivalent level of support.  And it will be up to our leadership to make sure that happens.  That is what it means to have bottom process, approved by the Board and supported by the Staff.

-----

In terms of your other proposed substantive edits:

DH1  question regarding individual membership

> 1. An Individual who has registered domain name(s) for personal, family or other noncommercial use;
> 2. An Individual Internet user who is primarily concerned with the non-commercial public-interest aspects of domain name policy, and is not represented in ICANN through membership in another Supporting Organization or GNSO Stakeholder Group; or
> 3. An Individual who is employed by or a member of a large noncommercial organization (universities, colleges, large NGOs)  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[hughesdeb1] ).
> 
>  [hughesdeb1]I am not sure I understand the distinction between #2 and #3.  Why is #3 needed if we have #2?

I think the most important thing about clause 3 is that it indicates that an individual who is employed in an NGO or other noncommercial can join even if his or her organization doesn't, and it gives the EC some leeway to limit the number that join from a specific non member organization if needed.  Yes, some of this can be interpreted from other points in the charter, but I beleive it does no harm to be explicit.

Proposed Resolution:  No change

DH2 - change waiting period from 60 days to 30 days before a new member can vote.

> Any NCSG Member who has been a member for at least 30[hughesdeb1]  days from the date of the election is eligible to nominate candidates, vote in NCSG elections, and propose amendments to the NCSG Charter.
> 
>  [hughesdeb1]Tow months seems like a long tome to sit on the sidelines.


The reason for the longer period is to prevent ballot stuffing.  At 30 days, a ballot process is usually already in process so 60 was seen as a good margin of safety.  But this will probably be a rare occasion and can be changed should we see gaming by amending the charter. 

Proposed resolution:  Accept the change


----

I ask the membership to review the proposed resolution to these points and comment as soon as possible.



Thanks

a.