On 8 May 2010, at 21:02, Avri Doria wrote: > Update: > > On 8 May 2010, at 15:35, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Thanks for the review. >> >> I have proposed resolutions to Alex's issues. Please review and >> comment. >> >> thanks >> >> a. >> >> >> On 8 May 2010, at 15:16, Alex Gakuru wrote: >> >>> My few comments follow. >>> - - - >>> 1.1 Mission. >>> (para 2) >>> >>> It provides a voice and representation.... >>> >>> a) propose: add category "free/open source software" - to cater >>> for public interest software groups (Justify: Free/Open Source >>> Software is at the 'core' of the Internet) >> >> Proposed resolution: add > > Sentence would become: > > 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; 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. > I do not see a particular reason for including religion. Anybody else? Desiree -- >> >>> >>> b) propose: a clause on circumstances for membership suspension/ >>> termination? (for example, if it was reasonably established that >>> their continued membership and/or activities defeat or contradict >>> noncommercial interests?) Justify: Charter defines new membership >>> in(eligibilty) but is silent on possible later changes on an >>> existing members circumstances. >> >> I am not sure this would belong in the Mission section of the >> charter. >> >> Under 2.2.6 There is already: >> >> The Executive Committee shall create procedural rules for >> membership and for existing members to maintain their good >> standing. Any such procedure will be subject to membership approval. >> >> Proposed resolution: replace >> >> The Executive Committee shall create procedural rules for >> membership and for existing members to maintain their good standing. >> >> with: >> >> The Executive Committee shall create procedural rules for >> membership and for existing members to maintain their good standing >> or for removal of membership for cause. >> >>> >>> 2.2.2. Ineligible organizations. >>> 4. Government organizations or departments whether local, regional >>> or national; >>> >>> question 1: it may help to clarify if Regulators/staff are >>> considered as 'government'? >> >> It think this depends on the location. Sometimes they are and >> sometimes they aren't and I think that we should use the national >> designation as the bright line criteria. If they are part of the >> government in then of course they are ineligible. On the other >> hand even if they aren't government, can regulators be said to have >> predominantly non-commercial interests? For those who have a >> specific non commercial mandate and are not part f the government, >> I think they already can join under the other criteria. >> >> Proposed resolution: no change >> >> >>> >>> question 2: whether Advisors to Regulators also fall in this >>> category? Giving due consideration of such persons role (e.g. >>> consumer protection) in the regulatory environment bearing in mind >>> that ICANN, is by its role, is an Internet Regulator? >> >> I think advisors are rarely government employees, so it depends on >> whether they meet some other criteria. >> >> Note while the question of ICANN as a regulator may be debated, i >> think it is clear that ICANN does not have a specifically >> noncommercial mandate. >> >> Proposed Resolution: no change >> >> >>> >>> question 3: or should any such above persons join in their >>> individuals capacity? >> >> If the meet the criteria for Individuals, they certainly that is an >> option. >> >> Proposed Resolution: no change >> >> >>> >>> 2.4.4. EC Work Process >>> • online document collaboration tools, for example Google >>> Document, Google Wave and other available network cloud based tools. >>> >>> propose: mention of specific software products, vendors, and >>> (current) technologies be ommited so as to avoid possible later >>> 'bias' acusations.. i.e. vendor and technology neutrality >> >> Good point: >> >> Proposed Resolution: drop names of examples. > > replace existing with: > > online document collaboration tools as well as available network > cloud based tools > >> >>> >>> 2.6.1. FC Composition. >>> .... The NCSG Chair will participate as an ex‑officio member of >>> the NCSG‑PC and will be included in consensus process and votes. >>> >>> question: was it meant to read "NCSG-FC"? (i.e. a typo?) >> >> Yes, thanks you. >> >> Proposed Resolution: fix >> >> >> a. >>