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

[Renata Aquino Ribeiro]

seems fine

Em 18/05/2017 9:11 PM, "farzaneh badii" <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> escreveu:

> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCUC-EC mailing list
> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20170519/c88b39fa/attachment.html>