[NCUC-DISCUSS] [Important] NCUC Bylaws amendment consultation process

avri doria avri at apc.org
Fri Sep 9 22:15:43 CEST 2016


Hi,

Actually it was not meant so much for petitions alone, but for the
ability to amend the charter.  It is difficult now, and I think it
should be.  But if we had to count all of the members, it would be
impossible.

So they decision was to require at least 1 simple action a year to
remain an active member: respond to an email.  Other SG/Cs have yearly
dues and that establish membership.  We opted for a single simple 2
click yearly test.

BTW, what is the current active/absent ratio after this last check-in.


avri

On 09-Sep-16 14:37, 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


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




More information about the Ncuc-discuss mailing list