[NCUC-DISCUSS] [Important] NCUC Bylaws amendment consultation process
Rafik Dammak
rafik.dammak at gmail.com
Fri Sep 9 09:55:34 CEST 2016
Hi Dan,
with regard to charter amendment, executive committee can initiate it as
per the article A in section VIII. that is how we did for this time.
Best,
Rafik
2016-09-09 16:51 GMT+09:00 Dan Krimm <dan at musicunbound.com>:
> There are other ways to balance the hurdle for charter amendments --
> abjectly kicking out passive members is not the only option. The 10%
> could be applied to *active* members, however that is defined (one idea:
> has voted in an election in the last N elections, not sure what number N
> should be -- but what was the criterion going to be for "passive" members,
> anyway?).
>
> So then "passive" members would not prevent amendments from being
> petitioned, while still remaining members.
>
> All groups such as this reflect a power-law curve (roughly: "80/20" rule)
> in participation. But individuals from that "long tail" can occasionally
> pop up and do something useful (my engagement of the election reform
> process is a case in point).
>
> It's always better to be inclusive, but then it seems to make sense to
> define procedures so that spotty participation doesn't bog down the
> process.
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> On Fri, September 9, 2016 12:34 am, Michael Oghia wrote:
> > 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
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/dce2cbc4/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list