[NCUC-DISCUSS] [Important] NCUC Bylaws amendment consultation process

Fri Sep 9 09:50:38 CEST 2016

Hi Mark,

could You share the actual article as well, as access is restricted to Your uni staff,

Best wishes,

Monika

----

Dr. Monika Zalnieriute

Melbourne Law School | The University of Melbourne I law.unimelb.edu.au I

Center for Media, Data and Society I Central European University I cmds.ceu.edu I
Executive Committee I Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group I ICANN I icann.org I

________________________________
From: Ncuc-discuss <ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org> on behalf of Michael Oghia <mike.oghia at gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, September 9, 2016 7:34 AM
To: Mark Leiser
Cc: Tapani Tarvainen; ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] [Important] NCUC Bylaws amendment consultation process

Thank you for this impassioned defense, Mark. Indeed, with the idea that anyone can join the mailing list, listen in on the conversations, and choose to be as active or inactive as they want, any individual not only has the right to do so but increases the accountability and transparency of our processes.

What I am thinking instead since this point has been raised is connected to the annual check-in process. Since we already check to see if people who have signed up have an active email address (for the purposes of voting), I think we should maintain a policy that as long as someone has signed up, has an active address, and is not engaging in blatantly obstructing behavior (e.g., spamming the list(s)), such members have every right to recieve updates and mails, as Mark so brilliantly highlighted.

Moreover, discerning the criteria to essentially remove someone from NCSG/NCUC is a pandora's box in and of itself.

Best,
-Michael

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Mark Leiser <markleiser at gmail.com<mailto: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

Email<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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 October

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20160909/28738f4d/attachment-0002.html>