Update to the charter based on comments

[Robin Gross]

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/20100507/3e62e9cb/attachment.html>