[NCUC-DISCUSS] [Important] NCUC Bylaws amendment consultation process
aicha chebbi
a.j.chebbi at gmail.com
Mon Sep 12 20:35:35 CEST 2016
I totally agree that 'silent, passive or non active members' in this wg
does not necessarily mean that they are doing nothing. I am by the way, one
of these people and i am definitely in a learning process, which means it
will me sone time to interact and contribute.
I think once we applied and asked to join this group, shows our interest in
it and its work.
So, i request gently from the old members, instead of dismissing, to give
time to new ones and why not give a hand in explaining the things that
maight be unclear or taugh.
Best.
Aicha Jeridi.
Le lun. 12 sept. 2016 18:27, Aaron Eitan Meyer <aaron.eitan.meyer at gmail.com>
a écrit :
> As someone who always reads everything, but extremely rarely comments, I
> think this is the right response. A big plus one.
>
> Aaron Eitan Meyer, Esq.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 12, 2016, at 1:22 PM, Nadira Alaraj <nadira.araj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Tapani & all,
> As it had been said here the silent majority might not be active for many
> reasons, one of the cases mentioned that they might be in the learning
> stage.
> However, a good practice is to do housecleaning for the mailing list.
> Some emails might be bouncing back others might changed their work emails
> and never attempted to replace their email.
> Those handful of nonexistent emails could be removed after listing them to
> the community to reach their owners if they know any updates about them.
> Best wishes,
> Nadira Alaraj
>
> On Sep 9, 2016 3:55 PM, "Tapani Tarvainen" <ncuc at tapani.tarvainen.info>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Mark,
>>
>> I think you may have misunderstood the intent here.
>>
>> For NCSG the concept of passive membership is well-defined,
>> it's in the charter: you will be considered passive if you
>> do not respond to the yearly voter registration or check-in
>> process NCSG conducts before each election. It has nothing
>> to do about activity on the mailing lists.
>>
>> And the idea we've been considering is removing those
>> who have been passive for many years - those we haven't
>> been able to reach by any means we've been able to try.
>>
>> So all you'd need to do is respond to an email once
>> every few years to retain membership.
>>
>> We may add some extra steps before removing members,
>> like one additional attempt to reach them, announcement
>> on the list in case someone there knows them, &c.
>>
>> But certainly the intent is not to drive away members
>> who want to support our cause but do not have the time
>> to actively engage in mailing lists or otherwise.
>> All we really need is some assurance that their
>> email works and that they want to remain members.
>>
>> --
>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>
>> On Sep 09 08:13, Mark Leiser (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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Email <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> 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>
>> 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
>> > >> <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
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160912/2b5f85b0/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list