[NCUC-DISCUSS] [Important] NCUC Bylaws amendment consultation process
Tapani Tarvainen
ncuc at tapani.tarvainen.info
Fri Sep 9 12:12:06 CEST 2016
I guess I should add that of course NCUC can implement stricter
criteria than NCSG and expel someone from NCUC even though they remain
in NCSG.
But, from the perspective of an NCUC member, I don't really see any
point of that for any reason other than violation of some NCUC rule
(membership eligibility or the like) that doesn't apply to NCSG - not
any kind of passivity I can think of.
Tapani
On Sep 09 11:54, Tapani Tarvainen (ncuc at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:
> Dear Mark,
>
> I think you may have misunderstood the intent here.
>
> For NCSG the concept of passive membership is well-defined,
> it's in the charter: you will be considered passive if you
> do not respond to the yearly voter registration or check-in
> process NCSG conducts before each election. It has nothing
> to do about activity on the mailing lists.
>
> And the idea we've been considering is removing those
> who have been passive for many years - those we haven't
> been able to reach by any means we've been able to try.
>
> So all you'd need to do is respond to an email once
> every few years to retain membership.
>
> We may add some extra steps before removing members,
> like one additional attempt to reach them, announcement
> on the list in case someone there knows them, &c.
>
> But certainly the intent is not to drive away members
> who want to support our cause but do not have the time
> to actively engage in mailing lists or otherwise.
> All we really need is some assurance that their
> email works and that they want to remain members.
>
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
>
> On Sep 09 08:13, 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
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list