[NCUC-DISCUSS] [Important] NCUC Bylaws amendment consultation process
Dan Krimm
dan at musicunbound.com
Fri Sep 9 20:40:09 CEST 2016
Pardon the typo, I do know how to spell Tapani's name... It's my
"extended hunt-and-peck" typing style...
On 9/9/16 11:37 AM, Dan Krimm wrote:
>
> 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>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160909/613558c6/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list