[NCUC-EC] [Imp] for observers well as EC members/ Bylaws related

[farzaneh badii]

Thanks Milton.

Does anyone else have any comment on this? Do you agree with Milton's
sentence "No two EC members may be the employees of the same organization
or be representatives to the NCUC of different chapters or sub-units of the
same organization."

We will discuss this in a final call on bylaws soon.

Farzaneh

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
wrote:

> A few comments about issue 1:
>
>
>
> Yes, this was added because of a concern about ISOC. But it could apply to
> various organizations with “chapters” or “sub-entities.” This is not a big
> deal because it doesn’t exclude any organization from membership, only from
> dual representation on EC.
>
>
>
> Not all ISOC chapters are “national.” Some are local to cities; e.g.,
> Washington DC ISOC or ISOC New York. These chapters are actually
> independent of global ISOC in terms of how they would vote or who would
> represent them. We should welcome all of them as members. However, given
> the relatively conformity of views amongst them, it makes sense to continue
> to restrict the number of elected officers who are from sub-entities of a
> larger umbrella organization.
>
>
>
> Here is how I would re-word the section of the bylaws:
>
>
>
> No two EC members may be the employees of the same organization or be
> representatives to the NCUC of different chapters or sub-units of the same
> organization.
>
>
>
> Obviously, not all of our organizational members have chapters. I think
> you can answer the ICANN staff comment by coming up with a definition of a
> chapter or subunit. It should be general and flexible enough to capture
> ISOC chapters and other relevant sub-units. ISOC is the easy case, these
> organizations call themselves “chapters” – they define themselves as part
> of ISOC. But APC is a difficult case – their membership consists of highly
> independent organizations who affiliate with APC in different ways and do
> not even share the same name. A lot of organizations have other
> organizations as members. Is that kind of a membership a “sub-unit”? I
> would say yes, we want to welcome all APC members as NCUC members, but not
> allow them to dominate the EC.
>
>
>
> On the quorum issue, IV(C)(9) part of the bylaws dates back to the bad
> old days when no one but the chair did anything. It was literally intended
> to empower the chair to do things unilaterally when necessary. If you think
> we’ve moved beyond that point, I would put the quorum at 3.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Issue 1: *
>
>
>
> Our current Bylaws read as
>
> *IV(D)(4)*
>
> No two EC members may be the employees of the same organization or be
> representatives to the NCUC of different national chapters or of the same
> organization.
>
>
>
> This is the ICANN staff comment: This term “chapter” occurs several times
> within the charter; however, it should be explained so that its meaning and
> interpretation are clear. Do all NCUC organizations have “chapters”?
>
>
>
> We discussed the historical rationale of using the word "national
> chapters" as Milton also explained a number of times before. We
>
>
>
>
>
> thought perhaps we keep national chapters but also add sub-entities for
> those organizations that do not have national chapters. Mike suggested a
> wording that would exclude those structures that were accountable to the
> same organization's hierarchy. (I hope I got that right Michael, can't
> clearly remember and didn't get to copy what you wrote, will have it soon).
>
>
>
>
> We didn't want to make this clause too broad and didn't want to make it
> too narrow. Any ideas? please share your wisdom!
>
>
>
> *Issue 2:*
>
> *IV(G)(5)*
>
> Appoint NCUC representatives to the ICANN Nominating Committee by majority
> vote, with at least four members voting.
>
>
>
> ICANN Staff Comment: There are 8 EC members according to Section IV-B.
> Does 4 constitute a minimum quorum for ALL EC votes or only for these
> special appointments? If it is a general constraint, then it should be
> stipulated earlier in this section and, then, it does not need to be
> repeated in 5, 6, and 7.
>
>
>
>
>
> Our discussion was: there are not however 8 EC members, there are 6 EC
> members. Considering that we have 6 EC members, should we have a quorum of
> 4? That aside, If we go with the quorum of 4, I think it should be only
> applicable to  especial appointments as laid out in 4,5,6, 7.
>
>
>
>  Other than this, having a quorum of  4 for voting in every decision
> making makes decisions more difficult. It also contradicts with this clause
>  "IV(C)(9): Whenever EC votes are required by the charter but inaction by
> other members of the EC prevents tasks and duties required by the charter
> to be executed, the Chair is empowered to act to further the interests of
> the constituency. In the event of a tie vote on the EC, the Chair shall act
> as a tiebreaker."
>
>
>
> So I suggest either to reduce the quorum to 3 and only applicable to the
> specific paragraphs mentioned above. ( or we could leave 4 as is)
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Farzaneh
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20170518/0014c48d/attachment.html>