Update to the charter based on comments

Sat May 8 18:43:02 CEST 2010

Thanks for the background, Robin.  I think we agree that groups of NCSG
members with similar interests should be able to affiliate and have
their voice heard and recognized within ICANN.  I would prefer more
clarity before making the decision "either/or" rather than permitting
Interest Groups and constituencies to coexist until there is some
certain about the consequences of disbanding constituencies.

I participate on the same working group with Rafik -- GNSO Operations
Steering Committee, Constituency & Stakeholder Group Operating Work
Team.  One of the OSC tasks that the working group is currently
considering is "Task 1: "Enhance existing constituencies by developing
recommendations on constituency participation rules, operating
principles, and database of members".  The current version of the
document has no mention of Interest Groups or the Interest Group concept
and does not provide or support/resources or recognition that
support/resources should be provided for Interest Groups.  I joined the
Work Group at the end of the Seoul meeting after the majority of the
deliberations and draft was completed so I agreed to focus on another
Task of this group; however, I wonder if the group ever discussed
Interest Groups or the desire to provide recommendations, support and
resources for Interest Groups in the report.  Perhaps Rafik can explain
why that document does not mention support and operations
recommendations for Interest Groups.  The report mentions constituencies
and Stakeholder Groups, but there is no mention of Interest Groups.  Or
maybe there are other documents the working group has produced for other
tasks that mention resourcing for Interest Groups, because, I have not
seen them.   

If the consensus from the community has been that Interest Groups will
serve the noncommercial community best and should have equally
recognition with ICANN as constituencies, it would be nice to see such
consensus reflected in the documents that recognize and acknowledge
entities within ICANN and the related reports, documents, policies and
material prepared by ICANN Board and staff.  In my opinion, I would be
very reluctant to disband a constituency an opportunity to without
having certainty about what that means within ICANN.  I suppose this is
an issue to address with the SIC and Board when discussing the new
charter.  Perhaps you already have a plan for preemptively addressing
that issue, but I would hate to "test" the concept without clarity.

Debbie

________________________________

From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] 
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 7:36 PM
To: Hughes, Debra Y.
Cc: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU; Avri Doria
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Update to the charter based on comments

Hi Debbie,

Thanks for your comments.   Our discussions with the Board have made it
clear that they are not wed to constituencies and are indeed looking to
us to advice them on how we can best organize ourselves, so I don't
think we can say the Board will only give support and recognition for
Constituencies.   As Rafik has pointed out, the GNSO working group
dealing with resourcing the GNSO is talking about BOTH constituencies
and interest groups  and 2 of the other 3 SG's are organizing according
to interest groups, so they don't feel any pressure to self-organize in
the constituency model either.  I think it is a red-herring to say we
must organize in the old constituency model in order to get recognition
and support from the board.  The GNSO is re-organizing and the Board is
looking to us to help shape the organization of NCSG in a way that
benefits the noncommercial community.   The overwhelming consensus from
the community has been that interests groups will serve the
noncommercial community best, and until that changes, we should support
that direction in our charter.  

Thanks,

Robin

On May 7, 2010, at 2:13 PM, Debra Hughes wrote:

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 :)

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.  

Debbie

-----Original Message-----

From: Non-Commercial User Constituency

[mailto:NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Avri Doria

Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 2:29 PM

To: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Subject: Update to the charter based on comments

Hi,

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_v

ote  

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.<GNSO NCSG Charter RSv 03May10 - DH 06May10.doc>

IP JUSTICE

Robin Gross, Executive Director

1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA

p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451

w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20100508/0f6332f2/attachment.html>