Hi Debbie,

the toolkit document was approved by the OSC during the Seoul meeting http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/tool-kit-services-recommendations-for-gnso-05nov09-en.pdf.
The support will be provide to SGs and then I-Gs will benefit of it. As you remember, we use the term GROUPs  in that WT to avoid the differentiation between SG and constituency.
Honestly, the main problem for consensus in that WT happened from the rep of constituencies who  tried to keep every time the status quo. 
maybe to make compromise we can add to the charter that support to which our SG is eligible has to ensure equal and fair support to all I-G?

 I would be very reluctant to disband a constituency an opportunity to without having certainty about what that means within ICANN.


  I don't see the problem for disbanding constituency, do you mean NCUC, which will be disbanded if the charter will be approved?

Regards

Rafik


 

From: Robin Gross [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 7:36 PM
To: Hughes, Debra Y.
Cc: [log in to unmask]; Avri Doria
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Update to the charter based on comments

 

Hi Debbie,

 

Thanks for your comments.   Our discussions with the Board have made it clear that they are not wed to constituencies and are indeed looking to us to advice them on how we can best organize ourselves, so I don't think we can say the Board will only give support and recognition for Constituencies.   As Rafik has pointed out, the GNSO working group dealing with resourcing the GNSO is talking about BOTH constituencies and interest groups  and 2 of the other 3 SG's are organizing according to interest groups, so they don't feel any pressure to self-organize in the constituency model either.  I think it is a red-herring to say we must organize in the old constituency model in order to get recognition and support from the board.  The GNSO is re-organizing and the Board is looking to us to help shape the organization of NCSG in a way that benefits the noncommercial community.   The overwhelming consensus from the community has been that interests groups will serve the noncommercial community best, and until that changes, we should support that direction in our charter.  

 

Thanks,

Robin

 

 

 

On May 7, 2010, at 2:13 PM, Debra Hughes wrote:



Avri,

 

I tried to make updates to the charter on the wiki, but it looks like

they were not saved.  So, I have placed my comments in the attached Word

document, adding to the document last edited by Rosemary. I am happy to

post my comments on the latest version you distributed today, if you

could give me instructions on how to update the document on the wiki :)

 

 

About my comments:  My concern is that we should provide for

constituencies and I have inserted constituencies throughout.  The Board

continues to recognize the constituency structure and has not indicated

the level of support and recognition that will be given to Interest

Groups. Since it remains unclear what resources, standing and

recognition interests groups will have within the ICANN community (by

the Board, Staff, Work Groups/Teams, ACs, other constituencies and SGs,

etc.), I think we should continue to recognize and support

constituencies and not dissolve them in this charter until the NCSG

receives clarity on that point.  I think we may be doing the NCUC and

non commercial users a disservice by converting constituencies into

Interest Groups without considering the ripple effect.  While those of

you who have been involved with ICANN leadership much longer than I may

have spoken with Board and staff about this issue, the Interest Group

concept is missing from the messaging and documents about ICANN

structure and engagement.  

 

Debbie

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Non-Commercial User Constituency

[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Avri Doria

Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 2:29 PM

Subject: Update to the charter based on comments

 

Hi,

 

I have updated the charter based on the comments received and the

discussions.  I include below a notated copy of the message I sent a few

days ago indicating the disposition of  the comments.  I will update the

comments page on the wiki a little later.

 

The updated charter is Revision 26  in:

 

 

The final version for the vote will be found in:

 

ote  

 

This version will contain any updates that come in the next day or two

and will be the one referenced in the ballot.

 

 

The review is scheduled to end after tomorrow (ends when 8 May any time

zone ends) with the vote to start next week.  The vote is scheduled to

last about a month in order to make sure that everyone has a chance to

vote - as the approval of charter requires that 2/3 of the member votes,

i.e. 181 out of a possible 302 using the proposed NCSG weighted voting

structure, it will be critical that every member register their vote.

Note, if the ballot does not pass, we will go back to the drawing board

to figure out what we got wrong in this charter.  More details on the

voting process will be available shortly.

 

So please take one last look and see if i got the edits right and if i

missed or mussed anything.

 

Thanks

 

a.

 

 

 

On 3 May 2010, at 12:07, Avri Doria wrote:

 

 

Included all typos notated in Rosemary's edit and a few others that were

pointed out.

 

 

 

RS-1. Section 1.1 (deletion)

 

It provides a voice and representation in ICANN processes to:

non-profit organizations that serve non-commercial 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; 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 and are not represented in ICANN through membership in another

Supporting Organization or GNSO Stakeholder Group

 

Delete:  and are not represented in ICANN through membership in

another Supporting Organization or GNSO Stakeholder Group

 

Proposed Handling:  while this is currently under discussion in the

section on membership, it is probably unnecessary here.  Ok, Delete.

 

done

 

 

RS-2. Title Section 1.2 (replacement)

 

Replace: Principles

 

with: Principles for Leaders and members

 

done

 

 

RS-3. Section 1.2

 

Under heading c) Service standards for elected officers.

 

Include the words from original Trans Charter as first paragraph.

 

Service standards for leadership positions include impartiality,

accountablitiy and avoidance of conflicts of interest.

 

Proposed Handling: Ok, Replace

 

done

 

RS-4 Section 1.2 (additon)

 

Add a section on member behavior similar to eg 1.3.3. from the CSG

Transitional Charter; 1.2 Registrar Transitional Charter

 

d) Member behaviour 

 

Behavioural expectations of all NCSG members, including without

limitation: adhering to ICANN Bylaws/Policies; supporting the bottom-up

consensue model; treating others with dignity, respect, courtesy and

civility; listening attentively and seeking to understand others; acting

with honesty, sincerity and integrity; and maintaining community good

standing.

 

Proposed Handling:  The word Civility has be egregiously misused

within ICANN to control the behavior of others.  I suggest adding the

section but dropping the word 'civility' which has become an ICANN

keyword for suppressing dissent - if we learned to treat each other with

dignity, respect and courtesy, that should be be enough - civility add

nothing to this list other then the notion of prevailing attitude.  The

word civility also has a strong colonialist implication.

 

I would also suggest dropping "and maintaining community good

standing." as it also implies a notion of self-suppressing dissent based

on trying to fit in with those who hold the community's predominant

viewpoint.

 

 

done

 

RS-5 Section 2.1 (structural change)

 

Suggest for maintaining the concept of Constituencies that are Board

approved.

 

Proposed Handling:  Not make this change unless there is apparent

consensus in the membership for doing so.  this same disposition would

pertain to all other insertion of the word constituency except for 7.3.

 

One Question that was brought up was what would happen if the Board

approved a constituency in the meantime.  In the event both that

happened and this charter was approved with the constituency clause, the

transition mechanism would transform that Constituency into an

Interest-group in the same way it would transform the NCUC into an

Interest-group (section 7.3).

 

One issue that was brought up (and referenced in comments section

7.3)was the relationship of Interest-groups to the funding model.  Since

at least 2 of the SG already are not using the constituency model, I

think this is a broader topic then this charter, but is one that would

fall under the responsibility of the FC.  Perhaps adding a bullet to the

FC obligations (in 2.6) such as:

 

o Working with ICANN finance officers, Insure that the NCSG and

Interest-groups receive fair and equivalent financial support from

ICANN.

 

done

 

 

RS-5  2.2.5 On New Individual Members (Deletion)

 

3. An Individual who is employed by or a member of a large

noncommercial organization (universities, colleges, large NGOs) and it

is too complicated or the Individual lacks the standing to get his/her

organization to join on an organizational basis. This person can join

NCSG in his or her individual capacity. 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 equally).

 

Delete:   and it is too complicated or the Individual lacks the

standing to get his/her organization to join on an organizational basis.

This

 

Proposed Handling:  Accept the deletion in principle, but change:

 

An Individual who is employed by or a member of a large noncommercial

organization

 

to

 

An Individual who is employed by or a member of a large non-member

noncommercial organization

 

done

 

Further comments were received:

 

From:   Andrew A. Adams:

 

I think this needs some careful wording to avoid confusion in the two

uses of 

the word member here (One refers to the individual being a member of an 

organisation, the other to the organisation not being a member of NCSG).

I 

think this wording might cause confusion, so perhaps the wording:

 

An individual who is employed by or is a member of a large

non-commercial 

organisation (which is not already a member of NCSG).

 

Also, I would like a note making it plain that being employed by an 

organisation which has legitimate grounds for being an NCSG member does

not 

preclude someone joining as an individual member on their own rights.

So, for 

example, I am employed by Meiji University (meiji.ac.jp) in Japan, a 

non-profit private university. Meiji is entitled to join NCSG under the 

proposed new constitution, but so am I. While I _could_ join under the

above 

clause I am a member of NCUC on the basis of my own domain registration 

(a-cubed.info) and also as an academic working on the area of

information 

ethics, which includes IANA and DNS related issues. I'd hate to be

forced out 

because my employer joined NCSG as an organisation.

 

Avri wrote:

 

The topic of someone being an individual member as well as a member by

virtue of belonging to an organization is challenging for me.

 

 

 

You misunderstood my concern. I absolutely agree with Milton that an 

individual should not be accepted as in the SG as an individual by

right of 

employment/organisational membership when that organisation is also a

member. 

What I was concerned with was ensuring that someone who is an

employee or 

member of one or more organisations who are organisational members of

NCSG, 

but who also satisfies personally one or more of the other

pre-requisites for 

membership is not barred because their organisation is a member.

 

So, to use myself as an example again. I am employed by Meiji

University and 

a "member" (*) of the Open Rights Group. Both of these organisations

satisfy 

the organisational membership criteria, I believe.

 

However, I also personally satisfy the individual membership criteria

in ways 

other than being an employee/member of these organisations: I am a

personal 

domain name registrant and I do research into information ethics

(academics 

in this field in particular, and related ones such as IT Law,

computer 

science, business might well be worth particularly identifying as

suitable 

members whether or not their University is a member as a non-profit 

educational institution).

 

What I wanted to ensure was that my right to individual membership is

not 

over-ridden by my status as employee/member of an organisation.

 

This could be fixed by separating out three types of membership:

 

1. Organisational Membership

2. Individual Membership as representative of an organisation

3. Individual Membership as an individual with a clear _personal_

interest in 

the domain name system

 

Class 2 can be limited by decision of the EC to a maximum number of 

individuals representing any particular organisation and denied for

anyone 

whose organisation is in Class 1. However, individual membership

under class 

3 is still allowed, even where an individual happens to be an

employee/member 

of an NCSG member organisation.

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

What I wanted to ensure was that my right to individual membership is

not over-ridden by my status as employee/member of an organisation.

This could be fixed by separating out three types of membership:

 

OK, I get it. I support this. 

 

Class 2 can be limited by decision of the EC to a maximum number of

individuals representing any particular organisation and denied for

anyone whose organisation is in Class 1. However, individual

membership under

class 3 is still allowed, even where an individual happens to be an

employee/member of an NCSG member organisation.

 

Does this language work for you? Our concern is that a large

organization might try to "take over" by ordering its employees or

members to join as individuals. This "threat" has always been purely

hypothetical and some have been more worried about it than others. So

we've put in a check by the EC in case something fishy seems to be up. 

 

 

Resolution:  added

 

An individual who is a member or employee of a noncommercial

organization, which is itself a member of the NCSG, may apply for or

retain membership in the NCSG under the first two criteria for

individual membership.  Such membership is subject to Executive

Committee review.

 

 

 

RS-6 2.4.3  (question)

 

Can a chair serve a maximum of 2 consecutive years?

 

Answer: Yes.

 

Proposed Handling: No change

 

No change made.

 

 

RS-7  2.5.1 PC Composition (question)

 

Is the single representative from a proposed Interest-group an

observer.

 

Answer:  It is not written that way.  Since the PC does not make

decisions, but rather makes recommendation of a rough consensus basis it

did not seem necessary to limit them to observer only status.

 

Proposed Handling: No change

 

 

After reading carefully including the later section on Observers, I

realized this was inconsistent.  I made the suggested correction.

 

RS-8 3.1 NCSG Allocation (addition)

 

to:

 

No more then two GNSO Council Representative can be declared resident

of the same geographic region as defined by ICANN.

 

add:

 

To the maximum extent possible, no more then two GNSO Council

Representative can be declared resident of the same geographic region as

defined by ICANN.

 

Proposed Handling:  While this is a problem in the GNSO Council

because most of the other SG are not very diverse from a geographic

basis, this has not been a problem in NCSG.  However, since this rule is

more stringent then the rules in the Bylaws, adding the phrase may be

ok.

Allow the addition.

 

 

done

 

 

RS-9 3.3.1  Participation:

 

Question on: unless they give prior notice to the NCSG-PC and GNSO

Council. Should provision be made in the GNSO Council Operating

Procedures for absentee or proxy mechanisms, the Council Representatives

will be responsible for notifying the NCSG Chair with sufficient notice

to allow the Executive Committee or Policy Committee, as required by

those rules, to take advantage of such provisions.

 

The reference is to upcoming GNSO Council Operating Principle changes.

I put this clause in conditionally (i.e. "Should provision be made in

the GNSO Council Operating Precedures ..".)

 

RS recommend inserting a "where possible" qualifier.

 

Proposed Handling:

 

Replace: 

 

Should provision be made in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures for

absentee or proxy mechanisms, the Council Representatives will be

responsible for notifying the NCSG Chair with sufficient notice to allow

the Executive Committee or Policy Committee, as required by those rules,

to take advantage of such provisions.

 

with: 

 

Should provision be made in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures for

absentee or proxy mechanisms, the Council Representatives will be

responsible, where possible, for notifying the NCSG Chair with

sufficient notice to allow the Executive Committee or Policy Committee,

as required by those rules, to take advantage of such provisions.

 

done

 

 

RS-10 4.3  Proportional Voting (question)

 

It must be clear that a perosn has joined as an Individual or as an

Organisation to prevent individuals later claiming additional votes on

the basis of being part of an organisation - the Organisation must be

the member for the additional votes to apply

 

 

I have seen this distinction in operation before and I'm not sure it's

a good idea to allow size to determine voting power .....

 

Response:  The membership is clearly delineated in the membership list

and a person who is a representative for an organization is clearly

called out.  In assigning votes for formal procedures, the official

membership list is used ad one cannot place more votes then their

membership category.

 

I leave the question of whether it a good idea to the membership.

This is an idea that is carried over from the earlier proposed charter

and has ben the tradition in NCUC since before the individual membership

category was added in 2009.

 

Proposed Handling:  Leave proportional voting.

 

Add a line:  Membership classification will be based on the official

membership list, which must include the category of membership and must

be verified before any vote.

 

 

 

Added to 4.2

 

Membership classification for voting will be based on the official

membership list, which must include the category of membership and must

be verified before any vote.

 

However, this addition made me aware that we did not state in the

charter that a public membership list would be maintained anywhere, so I

added the following to 2.6 Procedural rules (under membership)

 

A full and public membership list including the membership

classification, and for organizational members the name of the primary

representative, will be maintained on the NCSG web site.  The NCSG Chair

wil be responsible  for updating and correcting the membership list.

 

Note: Did not change the proportional voting scheme.

 

----

 

Added section on the NCSG Chair as the charter spoke of the role and of

the chair's election, but had never described the role.  Strange

oversight for me to make.

 

Added:

 

NCSG Chair

 

The NCSG Chair is elected by the general NCSG membership for a one year

term and is limited to two consecutive terms.  The NCSG chair is

responsible for carrying out the executive functions of the NCSG under

the Executive Committee's oversight according to ICANN, GNSO and NCSG

mission and principles.<GNSO NCSG Charter RSv 03May10 - DH 06May10.doc>

 

 

 

IP JUSTICE

Robin Gross, Executive Director

1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA

p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451