[NCUC-EC] August to do [long]

[Edward Morris]

Hi Bill,

I'm sure I speak for everyone in our concern for your health, our hope for
your prompt recovery and our belief that if anyone ever deserved a vacation
from a 'part time voluntary' position it is you. Please be healthy and
enjoy your trip home.


> *1. Buenos Aires Travel*
>
> I had dinner with Glen the other night and she's fully aware that the
> requests to identify covered travelers are becoming progressively more
> unrealistic.  If we can get her something in the next week that should be
> fine.  Per previous I appreciate the magnanimous offers to step back in
> favor of someone else, but would also note that we have two or three orgs
> represented on the EC that generally pay for their people to attend.  It
> would be good to have confirmation yes or no of this from the relevant
> folks.  If it is correct, then all we need to do to get the full EC there
> is cover one person out of NCUC funds, presumably the cheapest ticket.  I'd
> guess that'd be Tapani or Ed.  Could you guys please price.  I favor paying
> per diem to NCUC's covered traveler as per Durban, there's no reason
> accepting this arrangement should disadvantage someone.
>

I agree with everything Bill has written here.

The bottom line: If our members get a workable, up to date, ICANN and State
of California compliant Bylaws ( there are issues there with the Public
Benefit Corporation statutes that ICANN is well aware of...for example, all
together please, Bylaw revision, not Charter revision)  out of this EC then
the cost of getting a few of us to Buenos Aires is well worth it.

The Bylaw revision needs to be an EC proposal. The other way of doing it
not only is unnecessary but our current Bylaws are inconsistent in terms of
the number of votes needed to get a revision proposal on the ballot. We all
need to be involved in getting a consensus on the revision we'll as an EC
 be proposing on CD. I'd suggest, if possible, we all need to be in Buenos
Aires to properly do this.



> Once discussions are actually going to get going, I believe a number of
> veteran members who care about NCUC and have been involved in previous
> efforts will want to get engaged here.  We also will need to take full
> stock of the various versions that people have played with previously;
> nobody will feel good about their work being simply set aside by new folks.
>


One thing we should probably do in August is try to bring as many of the
outputs of these previous efforts together in one place to see what has
been attempted. I believe Avri has worked on this before, you as well,
Bill...who else should we be in touch with in this regard?

I just ordered a book from amazon on writing bylaws for
nonprofits...whatever we're going to try to do has likely been attempted
somewhere, some time. No sense reinventing the wheel if we don't have to.
I'd suggest we need to look at everything out there.


 So some sensitivity in managing this process will be called for.  In
> addition, we will need to bring into the discussion either Rob (who's got
> the institutional memory and was involved in the previous reworking) or
> Mary from staff to make sure that whatever we do fits with the NCSG
> Charter, the GNSO Operating Procedures, the ICANN Bylaws, etc.
>


Perhaps a brief conversation at the outset with someone from legal might be
valuable - or should we leave this to Mary or Rob? I definitely do not want
to step on anyone's toes, but I, as all of you, am aware that  legal is
leading an effort for all Constituencies and SG's to have ICANN compliant
Bylaws, an apparently newly defined order of things.


>
> Here's my suggestion: Ed and Tapani, since you're particularly eager, how
> about being the lead carnival barkers and get people into the tent in
> August?  Some messages to ncuc-discuss, and direct appeals to key vets, to
> join the listserv (you don't have to use the word 'team' if you don't want)
> and get organized during August?
>
>
Done, with Tapani's acquiescence.





> Then, in September - October the group decides how it wants to proceed and
> online collaboration commences in earnest (IGF will cause asynchronous
> delays in some corners), resulting hopefully in a draft that people are
> like 90% ok with by BA.
>


I guess with the toolkit comes some sort of communications possibilities,
if needed, so  everyone can get involved?  Skype / Google Hangout seem to
be less than ideal when groups grow past a half dozen or so volunteers.



>
> => I can ask Glen to secure a room for us for Friday 15 November in BA to
> do an intensive last push F2F negotiation to pull it together.  I can also
> ask her, and Xavier, whether any funds can be made available to cover some
> hotels so we can be there, but this may be difficult.  In which case, and
> returning to Milton's $5k, my proposal would be that NCUC makes available
> $2-3k as needed to cover the extra night of hotel so we can get this done.
>


Great idea. Needed. Well worth the money. Fully support.



>
> Assuming good will all around, we could then have something to be vetted
> for an hour on CD, and then put to a vote along with the elected NCUC
> positions the weeks of Nov. 25 - 8 December...not too far off from our
> schedule last time.
>
>
>
Considering what we inherited...I distinctly recall e-mailing Bill early on
wondering which of the half dozen or so Bylaws / Charters were governing
and discovering no one really knew. :) Getting a new set of Bylaws done and
passed would be a remarkable accomplishment. I know there are those who
wish us well but don't think we can get it done this quickly. Let's get
some help and show everyone we really are actually  good enough, and
committed enough,  do it!



> *3.  Programmatic*
>
> The response to the closed generic workshop and to us doing this sort of
> thing was so positive that I was severely tempted to take another whack at
> the piñata, taking advantage of Joy's last stand as a Councilor, and do a
> workshop on human rights & ICANN, what's it really mean, maybe based off a
> five page discussion paper.  I've also talked with Olga Cavalli about doing
> something together, whether within the program or off campus at a
> university.  But the more I think about it, the more I wonder if it'd be
> best to hold off on this so we can focus on getting the bylaws done.  Don't
> want to dilute people's energies too much.  Any bandwidth left over after
> bylaws can simply be applied to the GNSO issues de jour.
>
> That said, if some folks step forward and say they are really prepared to
> devote the needed bandwidth, we can reconsider.
>


Boy, those proposals are incredibly tempting. As Anriette pointed out in
Durban, ICANN is establishing hubs in countries without seemingly
considering human rights at all.  We had Steve Crocker in Los Angeles tell
us the NCSG includes people with expertise in many areas, human rights
being one, that aren't really part of ICANN's function.  I'd love to read
the proposed 5 page paper and, if well done, get it distributed throughout
the meeting. My area is more humanitarian law but anything that can get the
focus over to the "do gooder" side of the equation would be wonderful.

Olga Cavalli is one of my favourite people in the ICANN world. She's a
remarkable woman, has a great family, can disagree without being
disagreeable...the whole package. I would love to work with her. Wolfgang
was proposing doing something on a campus in BA back in LA. There probably
won't be a better place to do something like this...

If we're looking for a topic similar to open / closed generics...the whole
question of the role of geographical indicators comes to mind. As a
Constituency we're split. In addition, Olga was very effective in pursuing
her objective of preventing Patagonia from getting a new gTld, while
Hector, a Buenos Aires based attorney who is a member of the IPC, was quite
vocal in opposing protection for the Patagonia's and Amazon's of the world.
He's also a pretty good guy, as far as IP lawyers go. :) If we could
persuade both of them to agree to participate (GAC and IPC at a NCUC
forum)..it would be good. But...

I sense the Bylaw revision is going to be an all time consuming affair.
>From the Friday sessions, to setting up slides, getting our CD presentation
down, doing the CD and then selling the thing - we have a tough voting
threshold to meet - doing more might be pushing it.

That said, if it is decided to go forward with some programming I would
like to be involved in trying to make it happen. A lot of appealing
possibilities...



>
> There is also the open question of whether having talked about it with the
> two vice chairs in Durban, we want to try to organize a full meeting with
> the GAC in BA.  I would only want to do this if we really really were
> organized with an agenda of questions to pursue and a strong NCUC
> contingent on the ground.  Otherwise it could wait.
>


Another great idea. Again, the question of human resources comes into play.




>
>
> *4.  Toward Singapore*
>
> One other reason to keep our power dry, stick to the bylaws job, etc, is
> the next cycle.  As you know I have submitted a number of budget and GNSO
> Tool Kit requests, including for a) support for a Thursday new EC retreat
> and b) a Friday policy conference in Singapore.  (I'd originally wanted to
> do London, but there's no point trying to compete with ALAC's Atlas II
> conference, especially since many of us are At Large as well).
>


Do we have any word, Bill, on approval of your requests. The IPC is in an
uproar over getting their secretariat support proposal declined...how did
we do?

I hope NCUC will still try to do something in London to reach out the CS
there. Given the number of CS groups headquartered in the UK, it would be a
shame not to take advantage of the Meeting locale.





> Ok, I'm going to go lay down in a quivering lump.  Thoughts, please...
>


I hope you are feeling better Bill.


Ed

>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20130808/810ffcc2/attachment.html>