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