Dear all, distinguished candidates and board members,
Please, would it be possible to set up a more efficient, coherent, relevant and time saving communication strategy to replace the email server list!
Many thanks and congratulations for your election.
Jorge A. Restrepo
OISTE Foundation
Geneva
-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of NCSG-DISCUSS automatic digest system
Sent: lundi 10 juin 2019 20:09
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: NCSG-DISCUSS Digest - 9 Jun 2019 to 10 Jun 2019 - Special issue (#2019-144)
There are 5 messages totaling 89922 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. Charter revision procedures (3)
2. NCSG Ballots
3. UN High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation report
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 09:17:02 +0100
From: Remmy Nweke <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Charter revision procedures
Good morning chair
I will answer you in line if don't mind. See below.
On Sat, Jun 8, 2019, 21:40 Stephanie Perrin < [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> The NCSG Charter can be found here:
>
>
> https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_25801/ncsg-charte
> r-05may11-en.pdf
>
> The section dealing with Charter revision appears below.
>
>
> 5.0 Amendments to the NCSG Charter.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.
> p.23Amendments 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. 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.
>
> My interpretation of this language is as follows:
>
> 1. Individuals wishing to amend the Charter need to submit proposals
> for revision (i.e.text of the proposed new articles) supported by 5%
> of the members eligible to vote.
>
By mere fact that the proposal needs 5% of the members eligible to vote means ordinarily ithe proposal should be put to vote in first instance.
> 2. The NCSG EC may also submit proposals, and the ICANN Board of
> Directors or one of the Board's committees may also submit proposals.
>
The proposal was for your EC to take up not a throwback or ringmarolling exercise.
> 3. Amendments proposed by the NCSG, either a group of 5% of the
> members, or the NCSG -EC, will go to a vote of the membership. As
> such, they would need to be precisely drafted and explained well to the membership.
>
What do you mean by precisely drafted? You may never get that until it has taken the cause of public comment and inputs from members to be even near properly drafted as its subject to tweaking by ICANN board etc.
> 4. If 60% of the membership support the amendments, then the proposed
> amendments to the the ICANN Board for approval, and potentially for
> public comment.
>
That is after the initial voting and exercises must have been concluded ma.
> If those who were active in the drafting of the Charter believe I have
> misinterpreted this matter, do please jump in and let me know. As the
> Chair of the NCSG-EC, I am of course happy to receive requests for
> drafted amendments to be put to the vote, if supported by the 5%
> required in the case of Indivual member requests.
>
Interpretation of individual to seek the 5% will lead to balkanisation of the process which is not even good for the EC or good governance of NCSG.
Above all the least madam chair should do is to take it to EC, schedule a date for review. I had requested simply that you put this in your next tenure agenda if really you want to help NCSG to kick start the process but was rebuffed.
I am not unaware of the process having done charter review previously including that of ISOC rebirth in Nigeria and NPOC and Nigeria internet Registration Association among others.
If we continue looking for excuses the problem will persist beyond many years to come.
May be revisiting my initial proposal without any prejudice whatsoever will help us move to the next level.
Nice day
Remmy Nweke
Kind regards
>
> Stephanie Perrin
>
> NCSG Chair
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 14:51:05 +0000
From: Stephanie Perrin <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Charter revision procedures
As I mentioned, given there is an investigation going on and you continue to allege that I am acting with prejudice, I will not deal with these matters on the list.
You are very welcome to your own interpretation of the Charter.
Kind regards,
Stephanie
On 2019-06-10 04:17, Remmy Nweke wrote:
Good morning chair
I will answer you in line if don't mind. See below.
On Sat, Jun 8, 2019, 21:40 Stephanie Perrin <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
The NCSG Charter can be found here:
https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_25801/ncsg-charter-05may11-en.pdf
The section dealing with Charter revision appears below.
5.0 Amendments to the NCSG Charter.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.
p.23Amendments 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. 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.
My interpretation of this language is as follows:
1. Individuals wishing to amend the Charter need to submit proposals for revision (i.e.text of the proposed new articles) supported by 5% of the members eligible to vote.
By mere fact that the proposal needs 5% of the members eligible to vote means ordinarily ithe proposal should be put to vote in first instance.
2. The NCSG EC may also submit proposals, and the ICANN Board of Directors or one of the Board's committees may also submit proposals.
The proposal was for your EC to take up not a throwback or ringmarolling exercise.
3. Amendments proposed by the NCSG, either a group of 5% of the members, or the NCSG -EC, will go to a vote of the membership. As such, they would need to be precisely drafted and explained well to the membership.
What do you mean by precisely drafted? You may never get that until it has taken the cause of public comment and inputs from members to be even near properly drafted as its subject to tweaking by ICANN board etc.
4. If 60% of the membership support the amendments, then the proposed amendments to the the ICANN Board for approval, and potentially for public comment.
That is after the initial voting and exercises must have been concluded ma.
If those who were active in the drafting of the Charter believe I have misinterpreted this matter, do please jump in and let me know. As the Chair of the NCSG-EC, I am of course happy to receive requests for drafted amendments to be put to the vote, if supported by the 5% required in the case of Indivual member requests.
Interpretation of individual to seek the 5% will lead to balkanisation of the process which is not even good for the EC or good governance of NCSG.
Above all the least madam chair should do is to take it to EC, schedule a date for review. I had requested simply that you put this in your next tenure agenda if really you want to help NCSG to kick start the process but was rebuffed.
I am not unaware of the process having done charter review previously including that of ISOC rebirth in Nigeria and NPOC and Nigeria internet Registration Association among others.
If we continue looking for excuses the problem will persist beyond many years to come.
May be revisiting my initial proposal without any prejudice whatsoever will help us move to the next level.
Nice day
Remmy Nweke
Kind regards
Stephanie Perrin
NCSG Chair
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 17:08:29 +0000
From: Stephanie Perrin <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: NCSG Ballots
Dear NCSG members,
You will soon be receiving your ballots for the election. The rules for the voting mechanism are specified in our Charter, under section 4. Specifically, the mechanism is described as follows:
4.3
Election for NCSG GNSO Council Representatives (size, number, and distribution of votes):In the discussion below, N refers to the number of seats that need to be elected. Optimally N will equal 3 seats in years with normal rotation. Any number of reasons can cause this number to vary:
NCSG members classified as “individuals” will be given N votes and must assign 1 vote to each of N candidates.
• NCSG members classified as “small organizations” will be given 2N votes and must assign exactly 2 votes to each of N candidates.
• NCSG members
classified as “large organizations” will be given 4N votes and must assign exactly 4 votes to each of N candidates.
4.4 Election of NCSG Chair (size and number of votes):
• NCSG members classified as “individuals” will be given 1 vote.
• NCSG members classified as “small organizations” will be given 2 votes.
• NCSG members classified as “large organizations” will be given 4 votes.
• Members must cast all their votes for a single candidate.
4.5 Member Voting Eligibility:
Any NCSG active Member who has been an active member for at least thirty (30) days before the date of the election is eligible to nominate candidates, vote in NCSG elections, and propose amendments to the NCSG Charter.
You will note the use of the word MUST. Because we have used the word MUST in the Charter, i.e. individuals, small and large organizations MUST vote for N candidates, we have elected in the past and in this particular election to offer voters the opportunity to abstain from voting for particular candidates. What this means is, if you really only want to vote for two candidates instead of the three, you may cast your vote for abstain, for the candidates you do not wish to vote for. This is very clear in the vote for the Chair where there is only one option....if you cannot bear the thought of voting for me, vote abstain. However in the selection of three out if four candidates for the council seats, it may be less clear. The purpose of my note is to make sure that all voters realize that they may vote for up to three council members. If they do not care to vote for a candidate, they may either omit that candidate, or vote abstain, the ballot will not be invalidated. Abstentions will be counted. We attempt to balance in the Charter two important aspects of a democratic organization…..strong pressure to exercise your franchise and vote, and a recognition that no one should be forced by ballot rules to vote for someone they do not support.
We select our council members based on total votes, so one person may get many abstentions (i.e. more than another candidate) , yet still have more votes than that candidate, and would therefore win.
I hope that this is clear. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me, I will attempt to explain it further. You may change your ballot using your ballot link, up until the close of the voting period; only the last ballot counts.
Kind regards
Stephanie Perrin
NCSG Chair.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 17:37:01 +0000
From: Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Charter revision procedures
Hi,
I understand Stephanie’s decision to refrain from engaging on a topic on which an investigation, which the Ombudsman is involved in, is ongoing. However, I am not party to this investigation, and don’t believe it is inappropriate for me to share some thoughts.
Remmy, a few members of the NCSG (including myself) have attempted to engage with you on your request to review and amend the Charter in good faith. Personally, I find your style of engagement with Stephanie on this and the other email thread relevant to this topic very distasteful.
I generally find these sorts of discussions on our members’ mailing list to be a good thing; an opportunity for us to hold open discussions where we can voice our concerns, and agree or disagree on outcomes. Holding them openly is how I believe it should be done, and I hope that for those who don’t engage in them, everybody who reads the emails being circulated becomes aware of either the policy or administrative issues at stake, or at a minimum, learn something new about the work being done within or by the NCSG. The tone of your emails is not helpful to any of these effects, and as James Gannon has already pointed out, they violate [ICANN’s Expected Standards of Behavior](https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en), which we are all subject to when interacting with each other.
Stephanie has already explained her view on how the process to review the NCSG Charter should be conducted, and is doing her duty as NCSG Chair in seeing it through. She’s invited you take the necessary steps to properly initiate this process. Instead of doing this, you’ve insisted on continuing to pointlessly argue, and send derogatory remarks to a mailing list on which several hundred members of the NCSG are subscribed.
You’ve accused the NCSG Chair of prejudicial consideration of your request and of being involved in a “ringmarolling exercise” in an attempt to apparently dismiss your concerns. You’ve accused her of hiding under the elections currently underway, and accused others of being dishonest, pretentious, working to keep the status quo motivated by self-aggrandizement, and the allegations go on and on and on. What you’ve failed to do is engage constructively with colleagues in a process that you yourself would like to see initiated.
The NCSG exists for one sole purpose; to enable the representation of non-commercial interests in gTLD policy development in the GNSO. Any structures (such as the Financial Committee, the Policy Committee and the Executive Committee) that exist within the NCSG are only there to further this purpose. Since joining the NCSG, Stephanie has been a true and tireless champion in advocating for non-commercial interests. The amount of time and effort she's put in to the NCSG, the different working groups she’s participated in as well as the GNSO Council over the years, and the admirable character she’s displayed doing all this has earned her the respect, not only of NCSG colleagues who are also engaged and witness to all this, but also community members from other GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, as well as other ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees. What the majority of others (including yourself) have done on behalf of the NCSG truly pales in comparison to Stephanie’s contributions. She deserves significantly more than the disrespectful and aggressive behavior you’ve displayed.
I try to be very selective of my contributions to this mailing list (to only share thoughts that I believe are relevant to substantive issues), and rarely ever engage in this kind of troubling issue. However, your incessant interventions over the past week, or so, are very much out of line. Please stop, and limit your interventions to issues of substance that we all need to consider regarding a potential review of the Charter, which at your request, we may need to vote on some day. I am not in any way asking you to censor yourself, but please express yourself respectfully to others who are undoubtedly deserving of this respect. There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing on an issue, but ad hominem attacks are not constructive, and should not be tolerated.
Thanks.
Amr
> On Jun 10, 2019, at 4:51 PM, Stephanie Perrin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> As I mentioned, given there is an investigation going on and you continue to allege that I am acting with prejudice, I will not deal with these matters on the list.
>
> You are very welcome to your own interpretation of the Charter.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Stephanie
>
> On 2019-06-10 04:17, Remmy Nweke wrote:
>
>> Good morning chair
>> I will answer you in line if don't mind. See below.
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 8, 2019, 21:40 Stephanie Perrin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> The NCSG Charter can be found here:
>>>
>>> https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_25801/ncsg-char
>>> ter-05may11-en.pdf
>>>
>>> The section dealing with Charter revision appears below.
>>>
>>> 5.0 Amendments to the NCSG Charter.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.
>>>
>>> p.23Amendments 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. 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.
>>>
>>> My interpretation of this language is as follows:
>>>
>>> 1. Individuals wishing to amend the Charter need to submit proposals for revision (i.e.text of the proposed new articles) supported by 5% of the members eligible to vote.
>>
>> By mere fact that the proposal needs 5% of the members eligible to vote means ordinarily ithe proposal should be put to vote in first instance.
>>
>>> 2. The NCSG EC may also submit proposals, and the ICANN Board of Directors or one of the Board's committees may also submit proposals.
>>
>> The proposal was for your EC to take up not a throwback or ringmarolling exercise.
>>
>>> 3. Amendments proposed by the NCSG, either a group of 5% of the members, or the NCSG -EC, will go to a vote of the membership. As such, they would need to be precisely drafted and explained well to the membership.
>>
>> What do you mean by precisely drafted? You may never get that until it has taken the cause of public comment and inputs from members to be even near properly drafted as its subject to tweaking by ICANN board etc.
>>
>>> 4. If 60% of the membership support the amendments, then the proposed amendments to the the ICANN Board for approval, and potentially for public comment.
>>
>> That is after the initial voting and exercises must have been concluded ma.
>>
>>> If those who were active in the drafting of the Charter believe I have misinterpreted this matter, do please jump in and let me know. As the Chair of the NCSG-EC, I am of course happy to receive requests for drafted amendments to be put to the vote, if supported by the 5% required in the case of Indivual member requests.
>>
>> Interpretation of individual to seek the 5% will lead to balkanisation of the process which is not even good for the EC or good governance of NCSG.
>>
>> Above all the least madam chair should do is to take it to EC, schedule a date for review. I had requested simply that you put this in your next tenure agenda if really you want to help NCSG to kick start the process but was rebuffed.
>>
>> I am not unaware of the process having done charter review previously including that of ISOC rebirth in Nigeria and NPOC and Nigeria internet Registration Association among others.
>>
>> If we continue looking for excuses the problem will persist beyond many years to come.
>> May be revisiting my initial proposal without any prejudice whatsoever will help us move to the next level.
>>
>> Nice day
>> Remmy Nweke
>>
>>> Kind regards
>>>
>>> Stephanie Perrin
>>>
>>> NCSG Chair
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 18:08:17 +0000
From: Mamadou LO <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: UN High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation report
Dear All,
Please find attached the HLPDC report.
Cordially
------------------------------
End of NCSG-DISCUSS Digest - 9 Jun 2019 to 10 Jun 2019 - Special issue (#2019-144)
**********************************************************************************
|
