[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