[NCUC-DISCUSS] [Important] NCUC Bylaws amendment consultation process
Seun Ojedeji
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Fri Sep 9 09:32:12 CEST 2016
Fair enough Mark. Perhaps "a way to deactivate members who have become
unresponsive" may be a better way of putting this. I also may fall within
the "passive" as well as I don't think I participate/represent as much
within NCUC.
Unresponsive could mean there is a time set to check on members and those
who don't respond after certain number of retries can be
de-commissioned/de-membered (sort of a better word)
Regards
Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 9 Sep 2016 8:14 a.m., "Mark Leiser" <markleiser at gmail.com> wrote:
> I would vigorously object at the suggestion that "passive members" get
> kicked out the constituency and would suggest not only is it completely off
> course, but also offensive and counterproductive. I am one of the "passive
> members" you refer to and hardly ever post on these threads, yet I read
> every email and contemplate the implications of the discussions and debates
> that come into my Inbox. I may be a "passive member" here, which is what
> you seem to want to judge me on, but am active in promoting civil society's
> role in Internet Governance in my academic setting (I teach Internet
> Governance on our LLM Programme at my home institute and discuss NCSG's
> role within ICANN to a lesser extent when teaching at the London School of
> Economics.
>
> My "passivity" turns "active" when I take what I have learned and through
> silent contemplation, write extensively about the role of civil society in
> Internet Governance and particularly the NCSG's role in fighting back
> against IP owners and other non-state actors over governance.
>
> Enter shameless plug for my chapter in the forthcoming Oxford Handbook on
> the Law and Regulation of Technology. Oxford University Press:
> http://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/54396/
>
> I feel incredibly passionate about the role of NCUC and NCSG in holding
> ICANN to check. I didn't think I'd have to post here from time to time in
> order to validate my feelings...
>
> Mark
>
>
> Mark
>
>
> Mark Leiser, BSc, LLB (Hon) | Teaching Associate and PhD Candidate |
> University of Strathclyde | Faculty of Humanities and Social Science | The
> Law School l Centre for Internet Law and Policy | LH306 | Lord Hope
> Building | 141 St James Road | Glasgow G4 0LT | Tel. +44 141-548-2493
>
>
>
> Email <markleiser at gmail.com> | Bio
> <https://www.strath.ac.uk/humanities/courses/gradschool/studentprofiles/markleiser/>
> | Twitter <http://twitter.com/#!/mleiser> | LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=189149411&trk=tab_pro> | Google+
> <https://plus.google.com/u/0/105289982691060086995/posts>
>
>
> On 9 September 2016 at 06:45, Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This might be completely off course, but should we have a way to kick out
>> passive members, who haven't done anything for ... one or two years? That
>> ten percent could become unattainable eventually.
>>
>> -Raoul
>>
>> On 9 September 2016 at 02:59, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> I am glad to share with you this important announcement, on behalf of
>>> NCUC EC, to start the NCUC Bylaws change process.
>>>
>>> There were previously several attempts to amend the bylaws/charter to
>>> update it and align it with NCSG charter. For this time and as the bylaws
>>> allowed it, the NCUC EC decided to work as drafting team and propose an
>>> amended draft version for consultation based on previous drafting teams and
>>> volunteers work. I want to thank everyone who participated on those
>>> precedent efforts.
>>>
>>> In term of timeline, we are going to follow this basically:
>>>
>>>
>>> - *Call for input*, *first reading* from *9th September till 8th
>>> Octobe*r
>>>
>>> NCUC Charter Amendments
>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wYP4-JGKA_u6QligvViBkygzj8Q62kmFF-ky5XSWWDU/edit#heading=h.30j0zll>
>>> First Draft
>>>
>>> NB During this time, the EC will regularly monitor the doc for questions
>>> and comments and attempts to resolve them. Teleconferences can be held as
>>> well to resolve issues and update members on our progress
>>>
>>> - *First resolution of comments* 8th October to 9th October by
>>> NCUC EC
>>> - *Call for input, second reading* for amended draft, *9th
>>> October to 9th November*
>>> - *Consultation about the charter during NCUC ad-hoc meeting* in
>>> Hyderabad (tentative date is 6th November)
>>> - *Final call* : *9th November to 12th November* , to take note of
>>> any objections
>>> - *Final draft ready* by *13th November* to be approved by NCUC EC
>>> - * Voting *in parallel with NCUC election (tentative dates *14
>>> Nov. - 27 Nov*) to adopt the new charter.
>>> - *When adopted*, informing the ICANN staff about the new charter,
>>> process with ICANN board/staff/OEC (Organizational Effectiveness
>>> Committee) starts. That process is outlined and explained at the bottom
>>>
>>> As working method, we are going to follow this:
>>>
>>>
>>> - The clean version of draft is shared in google doc here
>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wYP4-JGKA_u6QligvViBkygzj8Q62kmFF-ky5XSWWDU/edit?usp=sharing> and
>>> you can find the attached redline version to see the changes. For
>>> those who cannot access we can provide a doc version and will input their
>>> comments on their behalf. The google doc is in comments mode (and keeping
>>> trace of the discussion, please identify yourself when you comment) and
>>> your input is highly encouraged to be made there but discussion can
>>> happen in NCUC list.
>>> - Farzaneh as EC member will be the editor/penholder. The EC will
>>> respond to the comments and try solve any issue or questions.
>>> - During each readings, we will try to resolve comments, explain
>>> rationale behind amendments. We will keep a clean version as output from a
>>> reading .
>>> - We will organize conference calls during each
>>> reading/consultation to respond to questions and resolve pending issues, in
>>> addition to a dedicated session in Hyderabad ICANN meeting (where remote
>>> participation channels will be provided too)
>>> - We will organize a first a Q&A call about the process and to
>>> clarify about ICANN process side. We will create a page in our website to
>>> document the process and keep the documents there for tracking.
>>> - The NCUC EC will respond to questions/inquiries in the mailing
>>> list.
>>>
>>>
>>> *Adoption process*
>>>
>>> according to section VIII of the current bylaws, to amend the bylaws we
>>> need:
>>>
>>> *A. Changes to this charter may take place by vote of the
>>> Members. Changes may be proposed by the Executive Committee or by petition
>>> of the Members. A petition of ten (10) percent of the then-current members
>>> shall be sufficient for putting a charter amendment on the ballot for
>>> consideration at the next regular election. Alternatively, the Executive
>>> Committee by majority vote may propose an amendment for consideration at
>>> the next regular election.*
>>>
>>> *B. Charter amendments shall be passed if at least two thirds
>>> of the votes cast in the election favor its adoption (provided 40% or more
>>> of the eligible Voters cast a ballot in the election).*
>>>
>>> the voting/election period will take this on consideration (under
>>> discussion currently) with regard to the ballot and procedures to be
>>> defined by the NCUC EC.
>>> *Board/OEC process:*
>>>
>>> At a high level, the GNSO Charter Amendment Process involves a total of
>>> four basic phases
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> · Amendment preparations and approval by the charter-amending
>>> community;
>>>
>>> · Staff review and analysis of amendments for potential ICANN
>>> organization impacts;
>>>
>>> · Review of amendments and opportunity for comment by the
>>> multistakeholder community; and
>>>
>>> · Full Board review and action
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> According to ICANN staff, the entire Board review process (which
>>> involves the last three phases of the process) seems to now be taking about
>>> 6 or 7 months (calculating from the formal submission of the amendments to
>>> staff). The specifics of the process look like this:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *SUMMARY OF GNSO CHARTER AMENDMENT PROCESS (Excerpts)*
>>>
>>> *On 28 September 2013, the ICANN Board established a process for the
>>> amendment of GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Charters. That process
>>> is as follows:*
>>>
>>> *Phase I: Amendment Preparation*
>>>
>>> *GNSO Stakeholder Groups (SGs) and Constituencies should formulate
>>> charter amendments through their own internal processes and notify ICANN
>>> Staff as early as practicable (at **policy-staff at icann.org
>>> <policy-staff at icann.org>) upon initiation and completion (approval) of such
>>> efforts.*
>>>
>>> *Phase II: Staff Review*
>>>
>>> *Upon formal receipt of the proposed amendment(s) approved by the
>>> community group, ICANN staff will analyze the proposal and, within 10
>>> business days, submit the community proposal with a report to the
>>> appropriate Board committee identifying any fiscal or liability concerns.*
>>>
>>> *Phase III: Public Comments*
>>>
>>> *After Board committee review of the Staff report and the proposed
>>> charter amendments, the Board committee will direct the opening of a Public
>>> Comment Forum. Upon completion of the Forum, within 30 calendar days, staff
>>> will provide a report to the Board committee summarizing the community
>>> feedback.*
>>>
>>> *Phase IV: Board Review*
>>>
>>> *At the next available opportunity after the delivery and publication of
>>> the staff report, the appropriate Board committee shall review the proposed
>>> charter amendments, the staff report and any community feedback and make a
>>> recommendation to the Board.*
>>>
>>> *After receiving a recommendation from the committee, the Board shall
>>> either:*
>>>
>>> *a. **Recognize the proposed charter amendment by a simple majority
>>> vote; or*
>>>
>>> *b. **Reject the proposed amendment by a supermajority (2/3) vote
>>> and provide a specific rationale for its concerns.*
>>>
>>> *c. **If neither above condition is met, the Board will ask for
>>> further explanation of the proposed amendments by the community.*
>>>
>>> *In its review of the proposed amendments, the ICANN Board may ask
>>> questions and otherwise consult with the affected SG or Constituency. If it
>>> is not feasible for the Board to take action on the proposed amendments
>>> after two meetings, the Board shall report to the affected SG or
>>> Constituency the circumstance(s) that prevented it from making a final
>>> action and its best estimate of the time required to reach an action. That
>>> report is deemed an "action" under this process. If it is not feasible for
>>> the Board to take action on the proposed amendments after four meetings (or
>>> after a total of six scheduled meetings), the proposed community amendments
>>> will be deemed effective.*
>>>
>>>
>>> The full process is posted on the ICANN GNSO web site at the bottom of
>>> this page –http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies.
>>> A pdf version of the process can be viewed and downloaded from this link -
>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies
>>> /charter-amendment-process-28sep13-en.pdf
>>>
>>> Please feel free to ask any question or clarification about the process
>>> and the bylaw draft. We need everyone participation in this process.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>>
>>> Rafik Dammak
>>>
>>> NCUC chair
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20160909/daffa720/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list