comments on the charter

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Thanks for the review.

I have proposed resolutions to Alex's issues.  Please review and comment.

thanks

a.


On 8 May 2010, at 15:16, Alex Gakuru wrote:

> My few comments follow.
> - - -
> 1.1 Mission.
> (para 2)
> 
> It provides a voice and representation.... 
> 
> a) propose: add category "free/open source software" - to cater for public interest software groups (Justify: Free/Open Source Software is at the 'core' of the Internet)  

Proposed resolution: add

> 
> b) propose: a clause on circumstances for membership suspension/termination? (for example, if it was reasonably established that their continued membership and/or activities defeat or contradict noncommercial interests?) Justify: Charter defines new membership in(eligibilty) but is silent on possible later changes on an existing members circumstances.

I am not sure this would belong in the Mission section of the charter.

Under 2.2.6 There is already:

The Executive Committee shall create procedural rules for membership and for existing members to maintain their good standing. Any such procedure will be subject to membership approval.

Proposed resolution: replace

The Executive Committee shall create procedural rules for membership and for existing members to maintain their good standing.

with: 

The Executive Committee shall create procedural rules for membership and for existing members to maintain their good standing or for removal of membership for cause.

> 
> 2.2.2. Ineligible organizations.
>  4. Government organizations or departments whether local, regional or national; 
> 
> question 1: it may help to clarify if Regulators/staff are considered as 'government'?

It think this depends on the location.  Sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't and I think that we should use the national designation as the bright line criteria. If they are part of the government in then of course they are ineligible.  On the other hand even if they aren't government, can regulators be said to have predominantly non-commercial interests?  For those who have a specific non commercial mandate and are not part f the government, I think they already can join under the other criteria.

Proposed resolution: no change


>  
> question 2: whether Advisors to Regulators also fall in this category? Giving due consideration of such persons role (e.g. consumer protection) in the regulatory environment bearing in mind that ICANN, is by its role, is an Internet Regulator?

I think advisors are rarely government employees, so it depends on whether they meet some other criteria.

Note while the question of ICANN as a regulator may be debated, i think it is clear that ICANN does not have a specifically noncommercial mandate.

Proposed Resolution: no change


> 
> question 3: or should any such above persons join in their individuals capacity?

If the meet the criteria for Individuals, they certainly that is an option.

Proposed Resolution: no change


> 
> 2.4.4. EC Work Process
> • online document collaboration tools, for example Google Document, Google Wave and other available network cloud based tools.        
> 
> propose: mention of specific software products, vendors, and (current) technologies be ommited so as to avoid possible later 'bias' acusations.. i.e. vendor and technology neutrality

Good point:

Proposed Resolution: drop names of examples.

> 
> 2.6.1. FC Composition.
> .... The NCSG Chair will participate as an ex‑officio member of the NCSG‑PC and will be included in consensus process and votes. 
> 
> question: was it meant to read "NCSG-FC"? (i.e. a typo?)

Yes, thanks you.

Proposed Resolution:  fix


a.