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

avri doria avri at acm.org
Sat Sep 10 06:12:21 CEST 2016


Hi,

This makes sense since an inactive member of NCSG should not be
considered an active member of NCUC.

avri


On 09-Sep-16 16:31, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> We already require that members activate some time in advance of an
> election before they can vote. This is an effective way of preventing
> zombie voters from being mobilized to distort an election. We might want
> to redefine the “electorate” as activated members
> 
>  
> 
> *From:*Ncuc-discuss [mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Seun Ojedeji
> *Sent:* Friday, September 9, 2016 3:32 AM
> *To:* Mark Leiser <markleiser at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Tapani Tarvainen <tapani at tapanitarvainen.fi>;
> ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> *Subject:* Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] [Important] NCUC Bylaws amendment
> consultation process
> 
>  
> 
> Fair enough Mark. Perhaps "a way to deactivate members who have become
> unresponsive" may be a better way of putting this. I also may fall
> within the "passive" as well as I don't think I participate/represent as
> much within NCUC.
> 
> Unresponsive could mean there is a time set to check on members and
> those who don't respond after certain number of retries can be
> de-commissioned/de-membered (sort of a better word)
> 
> Regards
> 
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
> 
>  
> 
> On 9 Sep 2016 8:14 a.m., "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/
> 
>      
> 
>     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 <mailto: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
>     <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> 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 <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.  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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> 

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




More information about the Ncuc-discuss mailing list