Avri, Ed
There is a well-defined process for changing the charter....in the current NCUC bylaws. 
We (the EC) have been working on that for the past year, and were getting ready to formally put a whole set of changes into place for the next election. 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> avri doria
> Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2016 6:45 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: PROPOSED NCSG CHARTER AMENDMENT
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Sorry, I misunderstood your proposal.  I thought you were recommending that
> the NCSG-EC just change the charter as an executive action.  Not that they
> recommend charges to the charter that would then be put to a vote as per the
> charter.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> On 14-Aug-16 06:19, Edward Morris wrote:
> > Hi Avri,
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> >
> > /Interesting idea./
> >
> > Thanks very much for that.
> >
> >
> > /I question that the NCSG EC is empowered to make such a change. I
> > rather believe that the process defined in the Charter needs to be
> > followed. We will soon have a voting. Get the required signatures, and
> > this can go on the ballot./
> >
> >
> > I believe the NCSG EC has the power to propose such a change although,
> > of course, any such proposal would be subject to approval by the full
> > membership. I could be wrong - you, not me, are the expert on these
> > things - but the way I read the Charter there appear to be a few ways
> > to activate a proposal for Charter change:
> >
> > ----
> >
> > /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.
> >
> > 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. 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./
> >
> >
> > ----
> >
> > The way I read our Charter, a  petition by members, a proposal by the
> > NCSG EC or a proposal by the ICANN Board or one of it's committees
> > appear to be the four options for commencing a proposal to change the
> > Charter.
> >
> > It certainly is not easy to change the NCSG Charter - that's why I
> > thought an effort led by the NCSG EC would have the best chance of
> > success. We would have to be largely united on this for it to succeed
> > and if the EC wanted it to happen I'd assume it would have a decent
> > chance. There are also some new administrative requirements for
> > Charter change imposed by ICANN in 2013 that a structure like the EC
> > is perhaps better equipped  to handle than would an ad hoc group of
> > volunteers.
> >
> > Nevertheless, if a petition is the way to go I'm happy to work with
> > others to try to make it happen. I'm not wedded to any particular
> > approach or specific textual change. I just thought that the situation
> > highlighted by the recent conflict in the NCUC illustrated a potential
> > problem with our Charter that could be best met proactively and
> > positively going forward by Charter change of this type. Happy to hear
> > and consider other ideas and perspectives.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> >
> > Ed
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 13-Aug-16 08:15, Edward Morris wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > As many of you are aware, the Noncommercial Users Constituency
> > > (NCUC) is currently dealing with a very delicate situation
> > > concerning the membership eligibility of a member of it's Executive
> > > Committee. While offering no opinion at this time on the substance
> > > or procedural validity of the ongoing situation at the NCUC, I do
> > > want to thank the NCUC Executive Committee for directing our
> > > attention to the issue of membership criteria not only of the NCUC but
> also of the NCSG.
> > >
> > > Preferring to look forward rather than backwards, I believe the NCSG
> > > EC has identified a potential problem regarding the NCSG's
> > > membership criteria that we need to fix immediately. Failure to do
> > > so could, in the worst case scenario, result in the NCSG being
> > > captured by the special interest groups we traditionally have
> > > opposed and combatted in ICANN.
> > >
> > > I hereby propose an amendment to the NCSG Charter that will ensure
> > > that applicants and members of the NCSG are truly individuals and
> > > institutions dedicated to the advancement of noncommercial interests
> > > in ICANN.
> > >
> > > *PROBLEM DEFINED*
> > >
> > > The issue at hand concerns membership criteria applicable to
> > > individual members and applicants of and to the Noncommercial Users
> > > Stakeholder Group (NCSG). Although this issue pertains to membership
> > > requirements both of the NCSG and NCUC my proposal herewith applies
> > > only to the NCSG. As the Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns
> > > Constituency (NPOC) admits only institutional members it does not
> > > have the same challenges the NCUC and the NCSG face in this regard.
> > > I have been informed that the NCUC EC is currently revising their
> > > Bylaws and trust that this membership criteria problem will be
> > > addressed in their internal reforms.
> > >
> > > Section 2.2.5 of the NCSG Charter, concerning Individual Members,
> > > reads as follows:
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Individual persons who agree to advocate for a noncommercial
> > > public-interest position within the Stakeholder group and who fall
> > > within one of the following three categories are eligible to join as
> > > an "Individual Member":
> > >
> > > 1. An Individual who has registered domain name(s) for personal,
> > > family or other noncommercial use; or
> > >
> > > 2. An Individual Internet user who is primarily concerned with the
> > > noncommercial public-interest aspects of domain name policy, and is
> > > not represented in ICANN through membership in another Supporting
> > > Organization or GNSO Stakeholder Group; or
> > >
> > > 3. An Individual who is employed by or a member of a non-member
> > > noncommercial organization (universities, colleges, large NGOs) can
> > > join NCSG in his or her individual capacity if their organization
> > > has not already joined the NCSG. The Executive Committee shall, at
> > > its discretion, determine limits to the total number of Individual
> > > members who can join from any single organization (provided the
> > > limit shall apply to all Organizations, of the same size category, equally).
> > >
> > > An individual who is a member of or employee of a noncommercial
> > > organization, which is itself a member of the NCSG, may apply for,
> > > or retain membership, in the NCSG only under the first criteria for
> > > individual membership, i.e. be an individual noncommercial registrant.
> > > Such membership is subject to Executive Committee review.
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > The problem, which has been highlighted by the recent actions of the
> > > NCUC EC, is that our membership criteria does not preclude
> > > individual NCSG membership under §2.2.5.1 from individuals who may
> > > be conflicted for any reason (such as employment) if they meet the
> > > basic test of domain name ownership, nor under §2.2.5.2 does our
> > > current membership criteria explicitly prevent membership by those
> > > whose employers may be members of another SO/SG. Left unchanged
> > > these provisions leave the NCSG susceptible to a hostile takeover by
> > > another SO/SG or, frankly, by any organised group which may not have
> > > the best interests of noncommercial users at heart.
> > >
> > > *PROPOSED SOLUTION*
> > >
> > > I propose modifications to NCUC Charter §2.2.5., §2.2.5.1 and
> > > §2.2.5.2 so that they read (changed wording in bold):
> > >
> > > NCSG Charter §2.2.5
> > >
> > > Individual persons who agree to advocate for a noncommercial
> > > public-interest position* (DELETE: within the Stakeholder group*)
> > > and who fall within one of the following three categories are
> > > eligible to join as an "Individual Member
> > >
> > >
> > > NCSG Charter §2.2.5.1
> > >
> > > An Individual who has registered domain name(s) for personal, family
> > > or other noncommercial use, *is concerned with the noncommercial
> > > public-interest aspects of domain name policy, and is not
> > > represented in ICANN through membership, personally or by his or her
> > > employer, through membership in another Supporting Organisation or
> > > GNSO Stakeholder Group.*
> > >
> > > NCSG Charter §2.2.5.2
> > >
> > > An Individual Internet User who is primarily concerned with the
> > > noncommercial aspects of domain name policy, and is not represented
> > > in ICANN *personally or by his or her employer* through membership
> > > in another Supporting Organisation or GNSO Stakeholder Group.
> > >
> > > *WAY FORWARD*
> > >
> > > NCSG Charter §5.0 contains several ways in which the NCSG Charter
> > > may be amended. In 2013 ICANN instituted changes in their procedures
> > > for approving and recognising charter revisions that are not
> > > explicitly reflected in the current NCSG Charter. Things are a bit
> > > more procedurally complex now.
> > >
> > > Although a petition approved by five per cent of our Members, based
> > > upon our weighted voting procedure, is certainly an option for
> > > initiating a change to our Charter, at this time I would prefer to
> > > defer to the NCSG EC on this matter. I respectfully request that
> > > full consideration be given to this proposal by the NCSG EC at their
> > > next regularly scheduled meeting.
> > >
> > > I hope we can all agree that membership in the NCSG should be
> > > reserved for those whose primary interest in domain name policy is
> > > reserved for those non conflicted parties dedicated to our Mission,
> > > as stated in
> > > §1.1 of the NCSG Charter. That is, to provide:
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > ...a voice and representation in ICANN processes to: non-profit
> > > organizations that serve noncommercial interests; nonprofit services
> > > such as education, philanthropies, consumer protection, community
> > > organizing, promotion of the arts, public interest policy advocacy,
> > > children's welfare, religion, scientific research, and human rights;
> > > public interest software concerns; families or individuals who
> > > register domain names for noncommercial personal use; and Internet
> > > users who are primarily concerned with the noncommercial, public
> > > interest aspects of domain name policy.
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > We need to fix this membership loophole.
> > >
> > >
> > > *QUALIFICATION*
> > >
> > > I certainly am not wedded to any particular statutory language to
> > > fix this problem. I welcome any and all ideas. I also recognise that
> > > in the changing ICANN environment we very well may wish to be
> > > creative and receptive to a more flexible and adaptive membership
> criteria.
> > > That, however, I would submit is fodder for a larger and more long
> > > term discussion.
> > >
> > > For now I do believe it is essential that we immediately fix the
> > > loophole in our Charter that could conceivably allow, in an extreme
> > > case, members of another Supporting Organisation to join and even
> > > become the majority voice in our SG. That simply is too big a risk
> > > to take. I look forward to working with the fine members of the NCSG
> > > EC and our wider membership to ensure the continued independence and
> > > noncommercial orientation of the NCSG, both in theory and in practice.
> > >
> > > Respectfully,
> > >
> > > Edward Morris
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus