[NCUC-EC] NCUC Bylaws Revision

Mon Sep 9 18:13:47 CEST 2013

Hi,

> Then you will really have to lead the process and get others to feel your
> sense of urgency, per the whole distributed team or 'committee' model.
>   I'm utterly jammed in September-October but will certainly follow your
> lead and participate.
>
>

Thanks.

> The goal now becomes to present a Bylaws revision for consideration by the
> Board SIC by December
>
>
> You might be getting ahead of things here, why not get the group going and
> see what people want and are really able to do?
>
> And do bear in mind, SIC's not waiting on this…the only sense of urgency
> I've detected is yours.
>

...and Tapani, and Amr, and those who have tried and given up in the past.

>
> , 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.
>
>
> Well sure, we'd have to organize a special vote, which is a hell of a lot
> of work, for us and for staff.
>

Actually we can't do that. Revisions have to be made during a Regular
election. But working with the Board SIC there are ways around that should
we decide to go that route.

>
> 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.
>
>
> I don't smell the gas but if you can get people worked up and working on
> your timetable fine by me.
>

We can only try. If folks don't want to step up, not much we can do.

I'm impressed by the fact we have had so many people volunteer, with little
prompting. Several of the names I don't recognize. I don't know what
prompted them to volunteer but I'm interested in finding out.

>
> So you favor us keeping the room in BA 15 Nov, noted.  Perhaps you can
> canvass a little and see how many people could make it?  Depending on the
> answer, we can then consider whether NCUC could pay the extra night.
>
>
>
Would we rather have a room booked and find we have no need for it, or have
no room and then find out with one push we can get this done?

You have me questioning my original position. I do believe a F2F is
necessary. The size and formality of the BA meetings...we probably won't
know that until we get underway. I'm not sure what to do given the
deadlines we face.

> 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.
>
>
> I don't understand the linkage you're making to money….something beyond BA
> travel support?
>

No.

I'm just pointing out that if we all agree the bylaws need to be revised we
should just get it done. The reasons we agreed to start this effort are as
valid today as when you initially proposed it. We're not going to save or
spend more money by going slower or faster. If we can produce a document by
the end of our term, though, next years EC will be able to move on to other
pressing items.

ICANN staff seems willing to work with us. At least two members of the EC
seem pretty willing to focus on it. We have volunteers numbering in the
double digits. I notice NPOC is producing policy statements being endorsed
by the NCSG PC and we don't even have a real means to do the same.  If not
now when? If not us who?

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
>>
>>
>
> **********************************************************
> 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/20130909/98ade787/attachment.html>