[NCUC-DISCUSS] [Important] NCUC Bylaws amendment consultation process
Dan Krimm
dan at musicunbound.com
Fri Sep 9 20:37:41 CEST 2016
Yes, but as Avri notes later (and as Raoul originally observed), this
was more about making it possible for petitions to be brought by a
subset of members without having to get a percent of a total that
includes non-responsive members.
Since Tapania has clarified that "active" just means "responded to
voting check-in" why not just have the 10% apply to active members
rather than total members? This does not require purging inactive
members, but prevents their inactivity from hindering petition processes.
Dan
On 9/9/16 12:55 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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 <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/
> <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 <tel:%2B44%20141-548-2493>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Email <markleiser at gmail.com <mailto:markleiser at gmail.com>> | Bio
> >>
> <https://www.strath.ac.uk/humanities/courses/gradschool/studentprofiles/markleiser/
> <https://www.strath.ac.uk/humanities/courses/gradschool/studentprofiles/markleiser/>>
> >> | Twitter <http://twitter.com/#!/mleiser
> <http://twitter.com/#%21/mleiser>> | LinkedIn
> >> <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=189149411&trk=tab_pro
> <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=189149411&trk=tab_pro>> |
> >> Google+
> >> <https://plus.google.com/u/0/105289982691060086995/posts
> <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
> >>>> Octobe*r
> >>>>
> >>>> NCUC Charter Amendments
> >>>>
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wYP4-JGKA_u6QligvViBkygzj8Q62kmFF-ky5XSWWDU/edit#heading=h.30j0zll
> <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
> <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>
> >>>> <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
> <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
> <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
> <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
> <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
> <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
> <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
> <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/20160909/2309588e/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list