On Feb 11, 2011, at 3:02 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for the edit pass. > > On 'civility' I expect we can come to any agreement. As you said, it has such a broad meaning. > > I took a quick look at the other comments, and some of your recommended changes seem like they would be substantive changes to the charter that was approved by a vote in the NCSG. I have been very careful to not make substantive changes during this process. I will read it more carefully this weekend. I would think that I would need to have consensus in the EC for making any substantive changes on behalf of the NCSG. I would like to see where the discussion goes on your proposals. > > But of course I will forward them to the SIC and Staff, with any comments that are generated on these lists. And I would expect you to offer them as a comments during the comment period. > > Best Regards, > a. > > > On 11 Feb 2011, at 14:31, Amber Sterling wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Debbie and I reviewed the proposed NCSG charter together and our >> edits/comments are attached. Please let me know if you have any >> questions. >> >> Kind regards, >> Amber >> >> Amber Sterling >> Senior Intellectual Property Specialist >> Association of American Medical Colleges >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:[log in to unmask]] >> Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2011 3:44 PM >> To: NCSG EC; NCSG Policy Committee >> Subject: [ncsg-ec] my review of the staff's edit to our SG charter. >> >> Hi, >> >> Here is a summary of my comments. I intend to send this to Sam Monday >> morning. >> >> In some cases these comments may not make sense without Sam's comment in >> the text. I guess sometimes they might not makes sense in any case. >> >> These comments can also be found in the document itself. >> >> >> Comments: >> >> Re 1.2.2 (c) Inclusion of civility >> >> If necessary I am sure we will include the word 'civility'. Many of the >> NCSG members, especially those in NCUC, see this particular requirement >> for civility as being problematic in that it requires a value judgment >> close to political correctness in order to make a judgment of what is >> civil and what is not. Especially in a multi-cultural organization >> often one cultures directness is another cultures incivility. We also >> believe that this criteria has been used improperly by the Ombudsman and >> others in ICANN's past to limit freedom of expression. >> >> >> Re 2.2.3 - definition of large and small organization >> >> Personally I prefer the original NCSG definition and recommend that the >> Constituency process includes this instead. the problem with the >> criterion here is that certain organization will be excluded from >> membership based on not being large enough to be small. >> >> >> a. Organizations that have more than 50 employees, or are membership >> organizations with more than 500 individual members, shall be classified >> as "large organizations". >> >> b. Organizations that are composed of 10 or more organizational members >> that qualify as "large" under criterion (a.) above shall be classified >> as "large organizations". >> >> c. Organizations that do not qualify as large organizations shall be >> classified as "small organizations". >> >> >> 2.2.8 Inactive Membership >> >> While it is reasonable to include a sentence to indicate that members >> can resign, i don't think we need to have names on the inactive list >> times out. >> >> Also, at this point we do not have dues. We are considering the >> introduction of voluntary contributions i the future, but at this point >> membership in the NCSG is like membership in ISOC, no payment necessary. >> >> >> 2.2.10 Sam had a question on outreach and coordination between >> constituency Outreach and SG outreach. recommended adding: >> >> Membership outreach will be coordinated with Constituency outreach >> efforts and any outreach efforts established by the GNSO or ICANN. >> >> 2.4.2.1 Requirements for appeal and the question of whether there should >> be weighted notion of bringing the case for consideration. >> >> We thought about this and decided that while the voting threshold >> includes the proportionality, the raising of the issue did not need to. >> >> 2.4.3 Chair election - changed the line to read: >> >> A Chair can serve, at maximum, 2 full one year terms[SE1] consecutively. >> There must be at least one intervening term before a member can be >> elected again as chair;[AD2] >> >> [SE1]For consideration: Has there been discussion about when the terms >> would begin/end? That could be specified in here, but not required. >> >> [AD2]not really. Basically that gets defined on an election by >> election basis. I was criticized once for making the charter too long >> by getting too much into detail. This sort of thing does not seem to >> really need codification, especially since creating a generic rule can >> get confusing. On the other hand, I think there was an ambiguity about >> whether a chair could serve again in the future, so I added >> clarification. >> >> >> -- >> >> Anyone have something else to add? >> >> Assuming the constituency process is approved, I think the changes Sam >> made were mostly ok. None of my comments is really big, except for >> perhaps the one about big and small organizations that create an empty >> spot for many of our small organization that are not big enough to be >> small under the staff' definition. >> >> thanks >> >> a. >> >> <NCSG Charter-2011-02-11_Amber-Debbie.doc> >> ---- >> Everything about this list: http://info.n4c.eu/sympa/info/ncsg-ec > > > ---- > Everything about this list: http://info.n4c.eu/sympa/info/ncsg-policy IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask]