[NCUC-EC] Reply to Bill / Rafik / Bylaws Revision

[Edward Morris]

Hi,

My apologies to all for this dump of posts I’ve had to do offline. I’m in a
hotel that harkens back to the era where you’re charged very high rates per
minute for extremely slow internet connectivity. Thus, the dump…




William Drake via alumni.usc.edu
8:04 AM (6 hours ago)

to Rafik, ncuc-ec, Tapani
Hello Mr. Chairman,

Ditto a day early bylaws meeting; I had to withdraw the room request since
the committee that was formed has not started, there's no plausible
production schedule that would result in a text to discuss, there was no
reason to believe a critical mass of people was going to be able to come
early for a meeting and requests for help ascertaining this didn't work,
etc.

Let me address these issues:


- I should first thank Bill for some advice he has given me privately
that’s helped me organize things (i.e. ICANN contacts, the concept of the
‘core’).

- While true there has yet to be a formal first meeting, it can’t
truthfully be said we haven’t started. We obviously had a false start,
discussed elsewhere. Then we ran into the reality that, with the exception
of Bill, none of us are IG professionals with perhaps normal work or
holiday schedules. My co-facilitator Tapani was offline for a little over a
week: his September holiday. I’ve been wandering South America for work the
past week or so. I need to pay rent. I certainly have not ignored the
Revision, though, during my travels:

- I’ve arranged for Adobbe / bridge via ICANN for our first meeting;

- I’ve had lengthy email/chat discussions with Amr and Tapani about group
structure;

- We’ve done more outreach, some visible, some not, to the experienced
members of our Constituency, albeit with disappointing results;

- A last call for members will be posted later today or, at the latest
tomorrow, when I get to the Naval War College and have decent internet
access;

- Kate Smith Lawrence, a solicitor with the Citizens Advice Bureau in the
U.K. who writes bylaws professionally for nonprofits and citizens groups,
has committed to analyzing our current Bylaws over the upcoming weekend and
making suggestions as to things we need to think about;

- A doodle / meeting call will be online in the Monday / Tuesday period;

- Tapani and I need to coordinate thoughts once I get back to the U.K. but
I have a project design in mind that involves, amongst other things: 1) a
2-3 week start that, in part, resembles a conventional WG DT; 2)
subdivision of tasks dependent upon volunteer numbers and interests (I
already have two individuals committing to heading subgroups should they
transpire); 3) a work process where consensus decisions are fed into
legally trained drafters who then feed their work back to the Committee for
approval. Kate has already agreed to do this and I’ve asked Grace to
consider this, as well.



My view at this point is that we focus on things that we must and actually
can do.  We need to organize and execute an election.  We need to meet with
the ATRT on CD and this time have at least one or two members who have read
their report and can engage them in conversation.  We need to talk about
the policy piece of the bylaws, and whatever other bylaws issues we deem
urgent, on CD.  I need to send Glen a CD agenda, today, which would be
aided by some EC members responding to my 14 September email floating a
draft for input/agreement.  What I think we don't need is more extended
back and forths about grand plans that don't get executed.


- I could make a long and extended comment about grand plans, about making
proposals without first determining the statutory requirements, about going
public with plans before determining said requirements: but why? We’re at
where we’re at. I certainly agree with the ATRT comments.


for bylaw, any indication about the volunteers who want to join this
effort?it is anyway a long process and I see it lasting till the meeting in
singapore.


You can find a list of our volunteers at the Bylaws Revision section of the
NCUC web page at: http://www.ncuc.org/bylaws-revision-committee/.

Rafik, I think your timetable is reasonable but we won’t really know until
we see who actually shows up ready to work, the level of commitment of
those involved and an initial delineation of the issues that need to be
addressed and by whom. The first two meetings will be crucial in addressing
those issues and getting a firm timetable in place.



Ed
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20130919/18455048/attachment.html>