[NCUC-EC] NCUC Bylaws Revision

Mon Sep 9 17:16:16 CEST 2013

Hi,

Here's the link to the IPC's comments:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-structures-charter-22jun13/pdfQJIo6JgVR9.pdf

Here's the link to the proposal (as was contained in Rob's e-mail, below):

http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/structures-charter-22jun13-en.htm
)

Deadline for reply comments is September 18th. I'm finding in my sojourn
through ICANN that on rare occasions we do share interests with the IPC,
particularly on certain procedural issues. Not often but....

Ed

On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 3:20 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

> Hi Ed
>
> Sorry I missed this one.
>
> On Sep 9, 2013, at 3:07 AM, Edward Morris <edward.morris at ALUMNI.USC.EDU>
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Looking at the Board SIC proposal,
>
>
> You might want to provide a link or some explanation, I'm guessing not
> everyone here knows what you're referring to?  I've not had time to look at
> it.
>
> 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.
>
>
> I've already notified Rob and really don't have an issue consulting with
> him, think it's necessary.  And a priori have no particular reason to back
> IPC (!), we have no idea what they're up to and why they think that matters.
>
>
> 2. The IPC proposals in terms of the black hole between less than
> majority support and less than super majority opposition are commonsensical.
>
>
> Again, wa?
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> So if the decisions are quicker constituencies are less at their mercy?
>
> BTW, last time we went through this stuff time worked in our favor, we
> were able in Seoul to turn the SIC around on the NCSG charter after
> extended lobbying.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> Given the totality of our relationship, this is not the gesture that first
> comes to mind, but if the group feels differently I'm open to persuasion.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
> 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
>>
>>
>
> **********************************************************
> 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
> ***********************************************************
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20130909/b7cf0e1d/attachment.html>