[NCUC-DISCUSS] [Important] NCUC Bylaws amendment consultation process
Michael Oghia
mike.oghia at gmail.com
Fri Sep 9 10:03:26 CEST 2016
+1 Matthew, good point.
-Michael
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 9:58 AM, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
> Rather than focussing on "kicking out" we should be focussing on ways of
> "bringing in" and " encouraging engagement".
>
> For example, we should find ways of enabling all members no matter their
> "status" to contribute through highlighting their work or other activities,
> and looking at ways that the work and activities of passive/inactive
> members can enrich the work of NCUC as a whole.
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
> On 09/09/2016 09:51, Dan Krimm wrote:
>
>> 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/stud
>>>> entprofiles/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_u6QligvViBkyg
>>>>>> zj8Q62kmFF-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_u6QligvViBkyg
>>>>>> zj8Q62kmFF-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
>>
>
> --
> --------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> + 44 771 2472987
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160909/23dcd670/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list