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

Fri Sep 9 09:52:20 CEST 2016

Hi Monika,

Thanks for the email. Unfortunately, I can't. I am under publication
embargo as book is in press thanks to our other nemesis, copyright law!
Once that is lifted, I am happy to share.

Mark

Mark

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 08:50, Zalnieriute, Monika <Monika.Zalnieriute at eui.eu
> wrote:

> 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> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> 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/dbc9e7b1/attachment-0002.html>