Update to the charter based on comments
Milton L Mueller
mueller at SYR.EDU
Sun May 9 03:21:42 CEST 2010
This is a very revealing comment, Rafik.
I think this rather definitively answers Debbie and Rosemary’s concerns. The fact of the matter is that everything Rafik is telling us – and everything I have heard from staff and Board – is that ICANN is perfectly willing to support SGs in the same way and for the same reason that it supported constituencies.
So if we’re going to debate constituency silos vs. an integrated SG let’s do it on the merits, and not say that it has something to do with ICANN support. Of course, we have been doing that for more than 2 years now, so it’s not a new argument. I’d refer people to the presentation NCUC made to the Board at the Seoul meeting, which seemed to settle the matter at least as far as the Board and SIC are concerned.
--MM
the toolkit document was approved by the OSC during the Seoul meeting http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/tool-kit-services-recommendations-for-gnso-05nov09-en.pdf.
The support will be provide to SGs and then I-Gs will benefit of it. As you remember, we use the term GROUPs in that WT to avoid the differentiation between SG and constituency.
Honestly, the main problem for consensus in that WT happened from the rep of constituencies who tried to keep every time the status quo.
maybe to make compromise we can add to the charter that support to which our SG is eligible has to ensure equal and fair support to all I-G?
I would be very reluctant to disband a constituency an opportunity to without having certainty about what that means within ICANN.
I don't see the problem for disbanding constituency, do you mean NCUC, which will be disbanded if the charter will be approved?
Regards
Rafik
________________________________
From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>]
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 7:36 PM
To: Hughes, Debra Y.
Cc: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto: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<mailto: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<http://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<http://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<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20100508/42397815/attachment.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list