Thanks, Remmy for starting this discussion and everyone who has contributed.

I personally see it and would like everyone to see this discussion as
not being YOU vs the NCSG. I would like to suggest members of the NCSG
to take this opportunity to either clarify/complement/discuss some of
those areas you brought up and/or add to the list of issues to be
considered, if more, so we can come up with a list of things. Then
this can lead to an agreement of whether they are enough to trigger a
charter review or the review or the OP or any other guiding document.

And to achieve this, I would like to call on the leadership of the
NCSG (the Chair here) to guide/encourage this conversation so it can
lead to some concrete outcomes (a list of issues). Leaders of NCUC and
NPOC may play a role here if there is anything raised that falls
within their remit and be able to play the same role of guiding the
conversation. The outcome here could be a list of issues to be
considered for a specific and focused discussion.

I agree that reviewing the Charter is a huge job but if the NPOC was
able to do it, the NCSG too can do it, the community just need to come
up with a considerable number of issues to trigger this review. And
this thread should serve to help bring them up front.

I do not think this thread should be stopped or the conversation
should be paused because we are in the middle of elections or because
so many things are happening. At ICANN, there will always be things
going on. There needs to be a starting point for such a conversation.

I would strongly suggest the leadership (and anyone else willing to,
such as veterans) to play the role of encouraging members to
critically think and suggest areas of improvement in our guiding
documents that need a deep discussion, to be brought to the table, in
this thread.

Maybe we should decide, as Farzi said that the issue of double vote is
not a charter issue but an OP issue, let's then tackle that specific
section in the OP so next year, we don't face the same issue? If the
issue of holding different leadership positions within the SG or the C
is not an NCSG problem or an issue at all as Amr said, we need to
agree on this and make it clear somewhere in the OPs maybe? Because I
do recall this was a burning discussion when David Cake was in that
situation. And since then, this has never been discussed anymore.

In closing, I don't want Remmy to feel like he is in a battle with
everyone. He should be thanked for having started the conversation and
I would encourage all members to jump in, not to ask Remmy to do the
work himself but he should be supported. If members think there is no
issues, then the discussion will stop by itself. A member can see an
issue but not be in a position to clearly frame it or come up with an
eleborated text because not everyone is good at this, he needs to be
supported.

Best regards,
Arsene

2019-06-07 16:41 UTC+02:00, Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]>:
> Hi Remmy,
>
> Since I agree that the request to review the charter is vague, let me take a
> stab at asking specific questions I hope you can answer. I’m trying to
> understand what the issue with the Charter is, and what fix you are
> proposing. So far, I’m quite lost. At the risk of being mistaken, I’m
> guessing that the majority of the hundreds of NCSG members you are asking to
> participate in a vote on this are likely as confused as I am.
>
> Please note that my questions are on the substance of your proposal to
> review/amend the Charter, not the process. I’m really trying to wrap my head
> around what problem you’re trying to solve. Please see below:
>
>> On Jun 6, 2019, at 8:34 PM, Remmy Nweke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>
>> 3.   The NCSG Charter in use was approved since May 5, 2011. We all know
>> that in this Information and Communication Technology (ICT) sector, moreso
>> the Internet or Domain Name System (DNS) industry, the level of
>> disruptions have made it imperative for stakeholders like us to be in tune
>> with development rather than being hindered by our charter.
>>
>> 4.   An instance is the aspect of the NCSG Charter which has to do with
>> Finance Committee (Section 2.6) coupled with multiplicity of
>> interpretations adduced by various members, which to the best of my
>> ability has been the bane of why Finance Committee is not and may not work
>> optimally to the benefit of its stakeholders in line with its Charter
>> mandate.
>
> I’m assuming that the part in the Charter on the NCSG Finance Committee is
> what you are referring to as a hinderance to the NCSG. Could you please
> clarify why you believe this to be the case? Specifically, please point out
> exactly which sections in the Charter are a hinderance, as well as practical
> examples that the NCSG has faced (I mean what really happened, even if just
> from your perspective) and had trouble with in the past due to this
> hinderance.
>
> Also, if the problem is limited to interpretation of the Charter (an
> assumption on my part, which you could correct me on, if I’m mistaken),
> could this not be solved in a simpler, quicker and by a less process-heavy
> means than revising the Charter. A Charter revision is a huge process
> involving ICANN Policy Staff and the Organizational Effectiveness Committee
> of the ICANN Board. And that only really kicks in following an extensive
> process the NCSG needs to go through in order to amend the Charter.
> Optimistically, this would take 1-2 years, but might very well take longer
> as has been the case in the past.
>
>> 9.      We also had instance where an individual was elected into the EC
>> of NCSG and still placed self for elective position for an Executive
>> Committee of a Constituency within NCSG, as if we are lacking people. The
>> truth is that since works here are largely voluntary and for good
>> governance, such loopholes should not exist or allowed to exist let alone
>> uphold it. As such it negates transparency in leadership.
>
> I’m not sure there is anything really wrong with this. The NCSG and NCUC are
> two separate structures. Speaking for myself, being a member of NCSG, while
> not being a member of either of the Constituencies existing within the NCSG,
> I don’t really care whether a member of the NCSG EC is also serving on the
> NCUC or NPOC ECs. All I care about is that this individual has the time and
> capacity to carry out the functions for which her or she was elected or
> appointed.
>
> So long as whoever involved is transparent about seeking to serve in more
> than one capacity, I don’t see what the issue is. Ultimately, the members of
> the NCSG elect a Chair that serves on the NCSG EC, while the NCUC and NPOC
> appoint representatives to the NCSG EC using their own internal processes.
> How they do this internally within their Constituencies is really none of
> the NCSG’s business, so I’m not seeing how the NCSG Charter has anything to
> do with this. Am I missing something? So, what is the section in the NCSG
> Charter you’d like reviewed on this issue, and what amendments are you
> proposing?
>
> Remmy, since you’re asking members of the NCSG to vote in favor of a review,
> then eventually vote for or against specific amendments, please help us all
> understand what you view to be the problem. I’m frankly surprised this
> thread has gone on for so long without this being done. Should have been in
> your first email suggesting the review.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>> On Jun 7, 2019, at 3:58 PM, Remmy Nweke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Madam chair,
>> In other words what has been proposed was not "concrete" enough and you
>> are complaining over sequence of voting?
>>
>> May be some of us needed some education on what you mean by "concrete
>> proposal" and "demand for review"  in your own terms. However, I think we
>> should stop playing with semantics and face the reality.
>>
>> We can't continue to shy away from the fact even if raised by someone we
>> may not like.
>>
>> Best of the day.
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019, 14:03 Stephanie Perrin
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks James.  Plus, you need a concrete proposal for amendment, not just
>>> a demand for review.
>>>
>>> As soon as you have all that I will be pleased to act on it.
>>>
>>> Stephanie Perrin
>>>
>>> On 2019-06-07 08:47, James Gannon wrote:
>>>
>>>> HI Remmy,
>>>>
>>>> Just a point of process here, if you wish to propose an amendment to the
>>>> NCSG charter please ensure that you are compliant with Section 5 of the
>>>> NCSG Charter which reads as follows (Paraphrased for brevity):
>>>>
>>>> - Proposals to amend this charter may be submitted by 5% of the current
>>>> members eligible to vote.
>>>>
>>>> So the proposal and secondment by 2 members does not current constitute
>>>> a valid proposal for amendment as per Section 5 of the Charter and is
>>>> thus not valid.
>>>>
>>>> So the correct statement would be that the ball is currently with you to
>>>> collect signatures of 5% of the current membership of the NCSG (Based on
>>>> current numbers this would be approx. 100 signatures depending on voting
>>>> weights) in order to proceed with your amendment proposal.
>>>>
>>>> I trust this is valuable information for someone interested in revising
>>>> said charter and that the correct process will be followed from here
>>>> out,
>>>>
>>>> -James Gannon
>>>>
>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss
>>>> [<[log in to unmask]>](mailto:[log in to unmask])
>>>> on behalf of Remmy Nweke [<[log in to unmask]>](mailto:[log in to unmask])
>>>> Reply-To: Remmy Nweke [<[log in to unmask]>](mailto:[log in to unmask])
>>>> Date: Friday, 7 June 2019 at 13:51
>>>> To:
>>>> ["[log in to unmask]"](mailto:[log in to unmask])
>>>> [<[log in to unmask]>](mailto:[log in to unmask])
>>>> Subject: Re: Proposal for NCSG Charter Amendment
>>>>
>>>> Dear Stephanie
>>>>
>>>> Frankly, I am surprised that you are still asking to see the specific
>>>> reasons for this Proposal, that means something is terribly wrong then
>>>> somewhere that I am yet to decipher.
>>>>
>>>> Despite alluding to the fact there is need to review the Charter you
>>>> still want some precise process. I really do not understand that.
>>>>
>>>> Those things you listed as having not discussed or agreed on like
>>>> fundraising etc were all in the Charter as FC role which, I merely
>>>> brought them forward in the proposal to elucidate on the need for review
>>>> and not personal views.
>>>>
>>>> I had expected you as the chair of NCSG to accept/acknowledge the
>>>> proposal and make it EC agenda item in the next meeting ASAP and even
>>>> forthcoming ICANN meeting agenda, and thereafter follow the process with
>>>> timelines according our Charter instance, not throwing it back to me
>>>> again for whatever process.
>>>>
>>>> I have done my bit by proposing and got seconder from Thato.
>>>>
>>>> The ball is now over to NCSG EC please.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Remmy Nweke
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019, 01:44 Stephanie Perrin
>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Thato and Remmy,
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me be more precise.  What amendments are you proposing?
>>>>>
>>>>> The more concrete your proposals for revision are, the more quickly
>>>>> matters will be resolved.  Drafting of any new Charter amendments does
>>>>> not fall to me, it is incumbent on those wishing to change it to make
>>>>> concrete proposals for change. I am aware of the problems with the
>>>>> original Charter, but I expect there will be considerable divergence of
>>>>> views on what our priorities ought to be in making changes.  For
>>>>> instance, we do not as a stakeholder group agree on the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> -  Should we have membership fees?
>>>>> -  Should we incorporate?
>>>>> -  Should we fundraise?
>>>>>
>>>>> My remarks were not intended to be a "throwback" but if you want
>>>>> changes, please be specific.
>>>>>
>>>>> My priority, as stated earlier and in my candidate statement, is that
>>>>> we participate actively in ICANN's currently ongoing revision of the
>>>>> multi-stakeholder process/model.  I would suggest that we wait till the
>>>>> ink is dry on that procedure, before revising our Charter.  I hope you
>>>>> will tune in on that discussion, and realize the gravity of the
>>>>> situation.  There may be radical changes coming in our financial
>>>>> situation and methods of participation.  However, you of course have
>>>>> the right under the Charter to request revision.  Just follow the
>>>>> process.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2019-06-06 17:38, Thato Mfikwe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Remmy,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I second the motion to have the Charter reviewed. Thus far I have also
>>>>>> noted that sections relating to the Finance Committee need some work
>>>>>> to only contain what is applicable, besides the recent organizational
>>>>>> vs the individual voting processes that have recently emerged. The
>>>>>> charter does not need to be followed partially but holistically
>>>>>> without limitation since it is a guiding document on SG activities and
>>>>>> processes. I am sure that there will be other amendments as a result
>>>>>> of the proposed review.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thato Mfikwe
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 8:49 PM Remmy Nweke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Stephanie and Colleagues in NCSG,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apologies ahead for a lengthy mail.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1.   I do not want to see this as a throwback from madam chair
>>>>>>> considering the time, which coincides with the ongoing NCSG election
>>>>>>> and related constituency blocs, I wish to propose for amendment of
>>>>>>> our NCSG Charter, which came into effect since May 5, 2011.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2.   I am also aware that severally, you as chair among others agreed
>>>>>>> before now that the Charter needs to be reworked and that Executive
>>>>>>> Committee (EC) of NCSG has the mandate to present it to the house for
>>>>>>> review, if you so wish and which I think will be more direct and will
>>>>>>> end the reoccurring dilemma during elections etc, which you have been
>>>>>>> trying to explain for a while and safe us the agony in the future.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3.   The NCSG Charter in use was approved since May 5, 2011. We all
>>>>>>> know that in this Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
>>>>>>> sector, moreso the Internet or Domain Name System (DNS) industry, the
>>>>>>> level of disruptions have made it imperative for stakeholders like us
>>>>>>> to be in tune with development rather than being hindered by our
>>>>>>> charter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4.   An instance is the aspect of the NCSG Charter which has to do
>>>>>>> with Finance Committee (Section 2.6) coupled with multiplicity of
>>>>>>> interpretations adduced by various members, which to the best of my
>>>>>>> ability has been the bane of why Finance Committee is not and may not
>>>>>>> work optimally to the benefit of its stakeholders in line with its
>>>>>>> Charter mandate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 5.   Inter alia the Section 2.6 stated:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 6.      “The NCSG Finance Committee is responsible for establishing a
>>>>>>> firm financial footing for the NCSG and administering NCSG funds
>>>>>>> within a defined framework that meets relevant legal requirements as
>>>>>>> well as requirements imposed by ICANN.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 7.       “The NCSG-­ FC’s responsibilities include fund raising,
>>>>>>> setting voluntary contribution levels for members, determining
>>>>>>> procedures for the distribution of funds, and for monitoring the
>>>>>>> utilization of funds.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 8.      “The NCSG-­FC will also be responsible for the Treasurer
>>>>>>> function. Formation of the NCSG-­‐FC, its composition, and duties
>>>>>>> within the NCSG-­FC are set out in Section 2.6.”
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 9.      We also had instance where an individual was elected into the
>>>>>>> EC of NCSG and still placed self for elective position for an
>>>>>>> Executive Committee of a Constituency within NCSG, as if we are
>>>>>>> lacking people. The truth is that since works here are largely
>>>>>>> voluntary and for good governance, such loopholes should not exist or
>>>>>>> allowed to exist let alone uphold it. As such it negates transparency
>>>>>>> in leadership.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 10.Motion for Amendment:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 11.  In accordance with (5.0 Amendments to the NCSG Charter) which
>>>>>>> states:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 12.  “Proposals to amend this charter may be submitted by five (5)
>>>>>>> percent of the then-­ current members eligible to vote, based on the
>>>>>>> weighted voting as defined in section 4.0. Proposals may also be put
>>>>>>> forward by the NCSG-­EC or the ICANN Board of Directors or one of the
>>>>>>> Board's committees.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 13.  “Amendments proposed by the NCSG members or the NCSG-­EC will
>>>>>>> only take effect after there has been a membership review, approval
>>>>>>> by 60% vote of NCSG members using the weighted voting defined in
>>>>>>> section 4.0 and final review/approval by the ICANN Board of
>>>>>>> Directors.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 14.  “Amendments proposed and approved by the ICANN Board of
>>>>>>> Directors or one of its Committees will only take effect after
>>>>>>> membership review and approval by 60% vote of the NCSG members using
>>>>>>> the weighted voting defined in section 4.0. The ICANN Board may
>>>>>>> require proposed amendments to be posted for public comment prior to
>>>>>>> taking its decision on the proposal.”
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 15.   So, based on the aforementioned instances, permit me to move a
>>>>>>> motion that the NCSG Charter (May 5, 2011) be amended in accordance
>>>>>>> with Section 5.0, and for EC to take every necessary steps to
>>>>>>> actualize this. I so moved.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks and accept my highest regards.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Remmy Nweke
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> June 6, 2019
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ____
>>>>>>> REMMY NWEKE, mNGE,
>>>>>>> Lead Consulting Strategist/Group Executive Editor,
>>>>>>> DigitalSENSE Africa Media [Multiple-award winning medium]
>>>>>>> (DigitalSENSE Business News; ITREALMS, NaijaAgroNet)
>>>>>>> Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza, Bolade Junction,
>>>>>>> Oshodi-Lagos
>>>>>>> M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms
>>>>>>> Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2019 Nigeria DigitalSENSE Forum on IG4D & Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable
>>>>>>> JOIN us!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Vice President, African Civil Society on the Information Society
>>>>>>> (ACSIS)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> NPOC FC Rep @ICANN Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG)
>>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and
>>>>>>> attachments are confidential and may also be privileged information.
>>>>>>> It is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke
>>>>>>> does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this e-mail.
>>>>>>> If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately,
>>>>>>> then delete this document and do not disclose the contents of this
>>>>>>> document to any other person, nor make any copies. Violators may face
>>>>>>> court persecution.


-- 
------------------------
**Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
<http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
GPG: 523644A0

2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
<
http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html>

(YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member
<https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
<https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member