[NCUC-EC] NCUC Bylaws Revision

Mon Sep 9 04:07:41 CEST 2013

Thanks Bill for all of your work coordinating things with Rob.

I think it's good news that staff is willing to work with us from day one
in rewriting the bylaws. It's a lot of work and we need to make sure
everyone is on board with the changes we propose to make. In that regard, I
hope everyone on the EC will now chip in with your views on the way forward
so we can get this effort moving.

My perspective is that not much has changed in how we should approach the
Bylaws revision. The end date has changed, but not much else. I'd suggest
we stick with the original plan as initially outlined by Bill and aim for a
final document to be presented to our members during Constituency Day in
Buenos Aires. The goal now becomes to present a Bylaws revision for
consideration by the Board SIC by December, after full consideration by all
of those present at CD,  rather than having such a document ready for
approval by our Members at that time. Once the Board approves the new
document I believe there are ways in our current Bylaws  to get it to our
Members for approval prior to the 2014 election period.

I'm hesitant to "take our foot off the gas" because once we do that and
lose the momentum my fear is not much will get done until we reach a
deadline next year. We've cleared the agenda, made arrangements for a room
and remote participation and received a record response to our appeal for
folks to join us in the effort. Let's not waste that. Instead of focusing
on the delay I'd prefer to focus on getting the work done and then being
the first SO/AC/Constituency to have a Bylaws revision approved under
ICANN's new processes.

In terms of finances, again, I see no reason to change anything. Our goal
is to come out of this processes with a widely supported, workable bylaws
ready for us to feature during Constituency Day and ready for submission
shortly thereafter. That we'll now be submitting it to ICANN rather than
our membership - no reason in my view to change anything. Let's get the
work done, the document done, and then deal with the, hopefully,
formalities of approval. I don't see where the delay will necessarily cost
us substantially any more money.

That's what I'm currently thinking. I am, however, open to suggestions. I'd
love to hear what others think.

Ed

On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 10:47 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
> Further to yesterday's message: again, while we won't be able to put
> revised bylaws before NCUC voters in December, there's no reason not to
> begin addressing the issues, some of which like policy work are fairly
> pressingly in need of clarification.  In some cases, it may be the solution
> requires a bylaws tweak.  In other cases, it may be that the EC can just
> adopt a internal rule or operating procedure that we'd list on the website
> for institutional memory etc.  Some items might be handled other ways.
>  Let's see as we start to go through them.
>
> In any event, Ed's 22 August boot up message announced the creation of a
> Bylaws Committee with a listserv
> http://www.ncuc.org/bylaws-revision-committee  (I'm not sure why this is
> a 'committee' with a page separate from the 'teams'
> http://www.ncuc.org/participate/working-teams, but whatever).  I see
> there are sixteen people subscribed and presumably expecting smoke signals
> on how to begin.  Ed, this was your baby and you'd indicated sometime ago a
> desire to lead the charge, so I hope that's still the case and there'll be
> a follow-up boot-up.
>
> One other concrete action is required.  You'll recall that in response to
> the 22 August call to arms and the (now dashed) hope that we'd be able to
> revise Sept-October and finalize and put to a vote in November, I'd asked
> Glen to secure a room for us in Buenos Aires where we'd conduct a F2F
> drafting finale.  She did so, drawing on the GNSO Tool Kit budget line; we
> have a reservation for Friday 15 November, kitted out with Adobe, recording
> and transcription.  We need to decide if we still want it.  While we
> presumably won't be finalizing a revised text, I suppose we could use the
> room to have a focused, F2F overview conversation on the bylaws.  Or, we
> could instead select out a pressing issue like whether/how to reconstitute
> a Policy Committee (under the extant bylaws or with revision), replace it
> with a different policy approval process, etc.
>
> This would be useful, but of course there are costs involved.  ICANN will
> not provide BA funding beyond the trips of Ed, Tapani and myself, so if we
> wanted other EC members there we'd have to pay out of NCUC's funds.  Ditto
> the extra night of hotel for the covered travelers.  This could run into
> quite a significant draw on NCUC's bank account, given the costs of
> flight/accomodation/per diem for BA.  There's also the question of
> whether/how many regular members with no funding we might actually get to
> BA a day early.  Not much point asking ICANN to fund a room if we end up
> with just a few bodies in it.
>
> Accordingly, I'm inclined to hold off on this and save the money for
> Singapore, where we're committed to a new EC retreat and policy conference
> and will have a greater need to have as many EC members present as we can
> manage.  But I'm open to persuasion if folks think there is a pressing need
> to go ahead with a BA meeting irrespective of costs, body count, etc.  So
> let's discuss.
>
> Please let me know what to do, rooms and resources are hotly contested so
> we should give Glen a clear answer soon.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 7, 2013, at 5:37 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
>
>
> **********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>   ICANN, www.ncuc.org
> william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h),
>   www.williamdrake.org
> ***********************************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130909/4c030bed/attachment.html>