[NCUC-EC] Response to Bill's e-mail of 14 September

[William Drake]

Hi Ed

Quick request.  If it would be possible for you to adjust your mailer settings so that the bits from others you are responding to were formatted differently from your responses, that'd be helpful, especially with long messages.

On Sep 19, 2013, at 5:35 PM, Edward Morris <edward.morris at ALUMNI.USC.EDU> wrote:

> Hi Bill,
> 
> 
> 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 
> 
> 
> -	I trust this has been done.

I had to tell her something and had no sense that there could be a critical mass of attendees.  Chatting today on the NCSG Skype confirmed that it'd be hard—people either were not able to come early or, like Avri, are but are already busy with other meetings.  

> Given all of the complexities of timing involved in this effort, it is best we do this methodically and in accordance with the reality of, as you are fond of saying, people’s bandwidth. Rafik’s observation / suggestion that we get this concluded by Singapore is a realistic goal.
> 
> -	I do want to address the “slow boot up” observation. Let’s review the facts: 1) The initial design – one getting all of this done by November- was your proposal. It also was a very good proposal, realistic and well designed. It’s a shame we have to dump it. Due to the realities of ICANN approval. 2) You asked Tapani and I to get things up and running while you were on holiday. We did and have a Committee membership of sixteen volunteers and a web presence. 3) You returned from holiday and asked us to put things on hold because ICANN might have a problem with our timing. Fair enough. They did.
> 
> Obviously we should not have rolled this out until we knew of ICANN’s timing. We did. Now that we know this, everything needs to be redesigned. We’re having a ‘new’ boot up, not so much a slow one. We’ve been hampered a bit by the fact not everyone is on your timetable. You had your break in August; Tapani had his in September. I’m in the middle of eight days of travel and work. Despite this, I’ve been working on this daily and will report in another post where we are at.

It was an operational observation about where we are, not a criticism…?

I guess the tone means I should dig up old mail?

On Sep 2, 2013, at 9:35 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

> I have written again to Rob seeking clarification on the likelihood that staff/SIC would be able to review/approve a bylaws update in November.  Until we have a clear answer either way it's not obvious we should be pressing everyone to crash on this in September-October.  I will get back to you about scheduling an EC meeting when we have some idea what's what. 

and then a few days later

On Sep 8, 2013, at 11:46 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.  

So while I noted "it's not obvious we should be pressing everyone to crash on this" until we heard from staff a couple days later, I've also repeatedly said before and since let's start and see how it goes and please begin a conversation on the list you set up.

>  
> -	I do wish to object to one part of your comment: this is not Ed’s committee. I think what we have here is a consequence of the different mindsets of a lawyer and a social scientist, both well intentioned people but with different ways of looking at things.

You said you wanted to drive the process, you created and announced the group, so I made a short hand reference.  Sorry.
> 
> First, if we are going to look at things personally this effort is being facilitated by both Tapani and myself at your charge. It is not, though, our Committee. It is an EC Committee.

Well, actually it should be a NCUC committee… 

> That’s important for reasons I’ll now try to explain.
> 
> The other teams are technically your teams, organized per Bylaws § IV©(2). Of course, that’s not the way we’re functioning but in the end, per the Bylaws, the teams belong to the Chair.

OFFS
> 
> The Bylaws Revision Committee is different and is set up to help the EC propose revisions per Bylaws §VIII(a). Does this mean anything to us today in a practical sense: absolutely not. Why care then?
> 
> It is now obvious that this Revision is going to continue into the new year. We don’t know the identity of next years Chair or regional members of the Executive Committee. I wish all of my colleagues, yourself included, well if they wish to run for re-election (if eligible). We just don’t know what is going to happen yet. So in that regard, it’s important for next years group to know who inherits responsibility for what.
> 
> Of greater importance is the Board. I’ve read the archives of the struggles that resulted in our current document. I don’t believe some members of the Board were acting in a rational good faith way all of the time. I couldn’t have higher respect for Milton, Robin and those who led the fight for approval. It’s a bit amazing we even exist today.
> 
> I don’t anticipate struggles of that sort with this Board. Still, I want to make sure all of our I’s are dotted and all of our t’s are crossed. Not Ed’s committee, not Tapani’s committee, EC Committee reporting to EC for EC revision proposal.
> 
> Pedantic? Definitely.

Yes

> Harmless? I hope so. A synonym for pedantic is meticulous and that’s how I always try to approach legal drafting.

You left out exhausting ;-)

Anyway, I see from your other message you're moving to get a bylaws meeting going, so all good.
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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…?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - My initial conversations with some of those who seem to want to be core members, per se, of the Bylaws Revision team indicates some thoughts about the PC that are more than mere tweaks. I need to make it clear that these are not my thoughts and, in fact, I don’t believe I’ll wind up supporting them. That said…
> 
> For CD (as proposed below) I’d suggest we change the 9:45-10:40 period to read simply ‘Bylaws Revision’. The concept of a Policy Committee will obviously be included in the discussion. There is no need to break it out as a separate discussion topic. I’d like to keep things as fluid as possible at this point because we don’t have any way of knowing where we’ll be at with the Bylaws Revision two months from now.

I think the need to clarify how if at all we do policy is the most pressing issue, as the recent privacy statement about staff demonstrated.  What issues are more pressing?
> 
> As for starting up a PC now…I’d suggest that should wait for the new EC to do it. It makes no sense to be starting this in late November. Positions and bodies will be changing in the weeks following Buenos Aires. We’ll know from the work of the Revision Committee and the CD discussion under that banner whether a P.C. is even wanted (I vote yes). The new EC can then roll it out as one of their first acts, or not, with everyone in their new roles. Of course, no harm in letting everyone know what the tentative plans are.

Let's see what happens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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...
> 
> 
> 
> - As above for the 9:45-10:40 time frame.
> 
> At the last NCSG meeting Avri suggested writing a letter to ATRT with some of our concerns about the documents policy, DIDP and the like. I sense we want to focus on their report in their visit, but I’d be happy to make a few slides, non-confrontational linked to the AoC, if that would be helpful.

We should indeed engage the ATRT.  I wouldn't spring issues out of the blue on them on CD, so yes it'd be better to write to them in advance.

> It was a real coup having the GAC visit last meeting. We probably shouldn’t wear out our welcome. We can always find things to talk about but I’m not aware of anything more pressing than normal as we sit here two months out.

Yes, I'm inclined to let it go with GAC for now, we have a lot on our plate.  We should use the AOB time inter alia to talk about stuff we've committed to, like the Singapore conference etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> 		
> 
> -Olga is a wonderful person, I was on the campus of the University of Buenos Aires on Monday and think it would be a great site, Wolfgang proposed doing something like this as far back as Los Angeles – it would be nice to do if we could. I’d suggest downsizing, though, given everything else going on.

Per previous, don't think it will happen.  Don't even think we'd be able to produce many NCUC bodies.  If she comes back with a plan that she's prepared to carry we can revisit.
> 
> Olga would certainly know the logistics and how hard it would be to put something together. Ideally part of whatever we did could be conducted in Spanish. I know the words IPC brings anxiety to our community, but there is an IPC member attorney who lives in Buenos Aires whom I believe would be receptive to participating if he could fit it into his schedule. Always nice to work across constituency lines.
> 
> That said, anything like this places a disproportionate burden on Bill and the other academics in our Constituency. You guys seem to have a really full schedule this fall. The decision should be yours.
> 
> If you decide you want to try it, I fully support the idea and will get there the morning of the 14th ready to do anything I can to help. I understand, though, it may be overload for those whose participation would be most essential.
> 
> Thanks for all of your proposals Bill. Sorry for the delayed response – a mixture of work, travel and extortionate bandwidth charges at my hotel.

And thanks for your replies Ed, helpful in moving things along.

Best,

Bill

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20130919/830fb921/attachment.html>