[NCUC-EC] Fwd: NCUC Bylaws Revision

[Edward Morris]

Hi,

Looking at the Board SIC proposal, now in it's response period, I noticed
comments by the IPC that actually make some sense. Namely:


1. Replacing the formal requirement to notify staff upon initiation of
efforts to reform a Charter with a more informal suggestion that those
managing the reform should consult with staff members early in the process.

I think that works better for us. I'm thinking particularly of those Bylaw
reforms initiated by other than the EC. I'd hate to see such an effort
thwarted because they didn't officially notify ICANN early in the process.
The fewer formal requirements Constituencies have in terms of notifying
ICANN the better. Informal processes should be preferred.

2. The IPC proposals in terms of the black hole between less than majority
support and less than super majority opposition are commonsensical.

3. Imposing a time limit on the Board to act to accept / reject Bylaws
amendments is a good idea. Constituencies should not be at the indefinite
mercy of the Board to enact changes to their own governing documents.


Do we have interest in endorsing the IPC proposals during the Reply period?
As we don't have a functioning PC I presume that responsibility falls to
the EC. Might be a nice gesture to a Constituency we don't often agree with
on matters of substance.

Ed


On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 4:37 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

> Hi
>
> Yesterday afternoon I had a long chat with Rob (the staffer responsible
> for us on operational matters) on a number of matters, e.g. bylaws
> revision, budget allocations, civil society roundtable, and proposed
> outreach and administrative funding.  I'm rushing to deal with something
> else at the moment but will send a summary tomorrow.  But before getting to
> that, I thought I should pass along the below.  His bottom line is that
> there's no way our proposed timetable for revising the bylaws can work due
> to the turn around time need by the Board SIC committee, the public comment
> period, etc.  So there's no point killing ourselves to complete a revision
> in October, since it can't go to NCUC members during the November election
> anyway.  That said, there's also no reason not to begin dialogue and work
> on the issues with an eye to member adoption of a SIC-approved revision
> down the line somewhere, and in particular to address the most pressing
> outstanding item, which is whether to reboot the PC or establish some other
> formal process for the adoption of policy positions and statements.
>
> More to come,
>
> Bill
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org>
> *Subject: **Re: NCUC Bylaws Revision*
> *Date: *September 5, 2013 5:39:52 PM GMT+02:00
> *To: *William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
> *Cc: *Glen de Saint Géry <Glen at icann.org>
>
> Hi Bill;
>
> I think staff can certainly help the NCUC complete its internal efforts to
> amend its Charter by November, but I don't think you would have the second
> step --- Board approval --  completed by that time.
>
> Even after a community elects to make charter amendments, those changes
> need to be "approved" by the ICANN Board.  Even if you gave me formal
> notice today that the NCUC had voted to approve a charter change, I doubt
> that we would be able to get them approved by the Buenos Aires Board
> meeting. That is primarily because the current Board-approval process (at
> present less-than-formal, but soon to be formalized – see
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/structures-charter-22jun13-en.htm)
> includes the requirement for a Public Comment Forum for community review
> and comments on any proposed charter changes. So there is a minimum 21 – or
> 42 day -- period built into the process.
>
> My observation is that these efforts always take longer than expected.  It
> wouldn't be a bad idea to get a group started asap even if its just to
> discuss and outline potential changes and staff (me and our experienced
> consultant Ken Bour) would be delighted to support the effort. Staff is not
> an "approval" bottle neck in any effort, but in my experience the Board is
> more comfortable with charter changes when they know that community leaders
> and staff have been engaged in an active dialogue. We can also highlight
> potential problem areas and suggest solutions so that any Board concerns
> can be anticipated and resolved before the changes/amendments are
> announced.
>
> I am happy to chat about this with anyone from the NCUC you designate on
> this.  Please feel free to share this note with any of those folks who are
> itching to get started. Let's discuss on our call tomorrow.
>
> Best,
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-ec mailing list
> Ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20130909/cb967505/attachment.html>