[NCUC-EC] NCUC Bylaws Revision => 1) Policy Committee, 2) Constituency Day, 3) Friday 15 November

[William Drake]

Hi

It's now been 5 days and I've only heard from Ed on the question of whether to hold a special meeting on bylaws in BA on Friday 15 Nov.  Ed appears to be wavering in light of the slow boot up and revised larger schedule and I'm opposed, so unless someone argues differently in the next 24 hours (and hopefully, provides evidence that there will be sufficient members there to make it work) I will write to Glen and cancel the room request.  We can use  our normal Constituency Day agenda talking about the progress of Ed's committee and the larger issues, and hopefully take some action on the policy front.  

My initial proposal on this would be simple.  

1) Policy Committee

A NCUC PC list serve still exists, maintained by Robin. <pc-ncuc at ipjustice.org>  We should create a new one alongside the others at lists.ncuc.org, and boot up the PC in a manner consistent with our extant bylaws V.  All councilors originating in NCUC; "Members...who are serving on GNSO Working Groups, ICANN Advisory Committees, Presidential committees and other policy bodies (standing or ad hoc) within the ICANN process [I'd interpret this to include the two NCUC reps to the NCSG PC}; and "Any NCUC delegates to the NCSG Executive Committee (in an ex officio capacity)," e.g. I'd join.

The PC adopts positions, replies to public comment periods, etc.  For issues that will go to the GNSO, the Councilors and two delegates carry the position into the NCSG PC for sorting out with NPOC and possible adoption as NCSG positions.

The precise composition of the PC could be tweaked in the revision.

thoughts…?

2) Constituency Day

For CD, I propose this tentative schedule

9:00-9:15		Welcome etc

9:15-9:45		Pending Elections

9:45-10:40		Policy Committee and Bylaws

10:40-11:00	Coffee

11:00-11:45	Visit of the ATRT II Team

11:45-12:30	AOB  (please advise of items to cover.  do we want to talk to GACers again?  I'd suggest only if we have a specific agenda, not more "getting to know you.")

Reactions, please...


3) Friday 15 November

I did chat informally with Olga Cavalli the possibility of us doing something substantive together on Friday 15 if we don't do a bylaws meeting.  Whoever got there in time could come.  Both sides need to decide if it's worth pursuing.  We were thinking something combining the South School of IG + NCUC might be fun, like a half day meeting off site (e.g. at university) geared toward civil society outreach, like what we did in Durban.  Anyone have any thoughts on this option?

		

On Sep 10, 2013, at 9:25 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi again
> 
> On Sep 9, 2013, at 6:13 PM, Edward Morris <edward.morris at ALUMNI.USC.EDU> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> Great, so then there's your core group to start and push conversation.
>> 
>> 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 don't recall the relevant provisions but if you say so, then ok, either it waits to the 2014 election or we work magic with SIC.  I think there's no point in continuing to go back and forth debating precise timings ex ante, we have to get into the process, see how it develops, and how that works with the rest of what we have going on.
>>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 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?
> 
> Based on my vague recollections of the last bylaws revision and the NCSG charter I'm obviously skeptical it's a matter of one push….
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> Well, a F2F would certainly help, the question is can we realistically expect a) the process will have percolated to the point that we have draft text to discuss in November (remember a lot of people will be jammed up with IGF etc in the meanwhile, plus we will have to organize and execute a NCUC election, while others do the same for NCSG, plus all else happening) and b) a bunch of people to commit promptly to come early to BA, especially if funding is unclear.  
> 
> What I do not want to do is ask for a budgetary outlay to support a meeting (ridiculous with staff and technical support) if we end up with the three covered travelers sitting in a room and two or three people on the Adobe.  So either we get a) a clear sense of who can be there and b) develop a clear and doable timeline for the production of a draft text to talk about, or we should tell Glen never mind and just talk about this within the Constituency Day program.  In Durban I programmed a lot of substantive discussion because a couple people complained in Beijing that organizational is boring and you said if we did that again we'd be beheaded by an angry mob.  I'd be willing to take a chance on dismemberment in BA and spend 60-90 minutes talking bylaws (esp. Policy Comm) and suspect that might be sufficient.  
> 
> You said you and Tapani drafted a letter for vet members encouraging them to participate.  Why not also inquire about BA, ditto on the committee list, and see who says they can come?
> 
> Again, we need to decide this soon and tell Glen either way.
>> 
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> Ok, so start the conversation in your committee and see what's what?
> 
>> 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. 
> 
> NCUC adopted lots of policy statements for a decade before this EC took office.  It did so very informally, with Councilors and others floating texts on discuss and elsewhere and if nobody objected we said it.  We could have continued in that vein, but this EC took the view that this was incorrect and we need a formalized process we don't have.  So everything's migrated by default to the NCSG PC.
> 
>> If not now when?
> 
> Starting now and continuing into next year when there's consensus on text and SIC approves it (I'd shoot for completion by London), but if you can make it go faster, great.
> 
> BTW, you asked in another message about process, 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Bill

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20130914/963a7c58/attachment.html>