Alex's comments on the charter - update

[Desiree Miloshevic]

On 8 May 2010, at 21:02, Avri Doria wrote:

> Update:
>
> On 8 May 2010, at 15:35, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>> 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
>
> Sentence would become:
>
> 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; public interest software concerns; 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.
>
I do not see a particular reason for including religion.

Anybody else?

Desiree
--


>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> replace existing with:
>
> online document collaboration tools as well as available network  
> cloud based tools
>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>