Many edits were made based on Editorial comments.
Issues discussed and their resolution
Issues brought by Andrew A. Adams
AA-1:
2.2.2. Ineligible organizations.
...
3. Organizations that ..., or are represented in ICANN through another
Supporting Organization;
...
I'm concerned about the overlap cases betweeen NCSG and other groups. While
these groups should be relatively distinct, there will always be boundary
cases of organizations who could be deemed to fall within the remit of two
groups. While being a member of two groups should not be allowed, I do think
there is a potential difficulty where a group falls between two SGs and
neither is willing to accept them because of such rules. Could some "weasel
wording" help here to indicate that organizations need to select the "most
appropriate" SG to represent their interests, should they be eligible for
membership of multiple SGs. There's also the issue of NCSG possibly being
whittled away by other SGs (who may have less firm charter membership rules)
gradually subsuming edge areas of NCSG.
Possible handling
Add the following to 2.3.3 Para 3
An organization which is a member of another GNSO Stakeholder Group or Supporting Organization may request Observer status in the NCSG. Such a request would be acted on by the Executive Committee. An observer in the NCSG could participate in discussions and in Interest-Groups, but would not have a vote or any other decision making participation and its members could not serve in NCSG leadership positions unless they became Individual members under the criteria described in section 2.2.5.
Issues brought by Rosemary Sinclair
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.
RS-2. Title Section 1.2 (replacement)
Replace: Principles
with: Principles for Leaders and members
Proposed Handling: Ok, Replace
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
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.
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.
Further discussion on this point was brought up by Debbie Hughes
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.
Response by Avri
As was discussed when Rosemary made the same suggestion, the Board has left this up to us. If this is what the Stakeholder group wants, and this is what I am understanding the consensus to be. The Board wants to see the charter thatNCSG wants to propose. The Board has made this very clear in discussion we have had with them - they are not limiting us to the Staff's interpretation of the previous Board's viewpoint.
I also point out, that 2 Board approved Stakeholder Groups, albeit transitional, already have charters that do not include Board approved Constituencies. But that is in sense beside the point. It is up to the consensus of the NCSG membership.
Additionally as Rafik mentioned in the previous discussion o tis point, in the Stakeholder/Constituencies Work Team, they have left the whole issue of support open for both Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies - the choice being a bottom up choice within each group.
If I find that after you email, the consensus of the group has changed and people agree with you that we should have constituencies instead of Interest-Groups, I will change the charter accordingly. However, at this point without some evidence of a changed consensus, I cannot make this particular change.
As I said it is up to the NCSG to present the charter it wants to the Board. Should they decide that they want us to have constituencies, they will send it back telling us so and we can discuss and negotiate with them if we wish. On the other hand if they accept the charter, as I expect they will, then it is up to the Board, and the staff acting on their will, to make sure that our Stakeholder Group with its Interest-groups get the proper and equivalent level of support. And it will be up to our leadership to make sure that happens. That is what it means to have bottom process, approved by the Board and supported by the Staff.
Response by Robin Gross
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.
Response by Alex Gakuru
One suspects such a move would risk an unpopular "top-down imposition" interpretation?
Response by Wendy Seltzer_
Regarding constituencies versus interest groups, I believe that the Charter and the Stakeholder Group will be stronger if we have the flexibility to form interest groups on a more fluid basis than Constituencies have offered in the past. I think Constituencies have often served as silos, hindering consensus-building and changing too slowly to reflect the dynamics of interests in Internet communications and technology. They focus us on exclusive definitions rather than inclusion of those who want to contribute.
I support the concept of Interest Group as described in the current draft.
Response by Rosemary Sinclair
Could the Board approve a Constituency and nominate it as part of NCSG if our Charter is silent on Constituencies?
An admin/procedural question...
Response by Avri
In response to this point.
If the Board approves constituencies before this charter is approved and this charter is approved, then the transition mechanism applies to the new constituency as well as it does to NCUC and they become an approved Interest-Group to be be reviewed in 6 months.
If the Board approves constituencies after they have approved this charter, then we have an interesting situation since they would have contradicted themselves. They would have approved a charter that did not have constituencies and then they would have approved a constituency. I do not believe the Board would do such an inconsistent thing. But if they did, then we would have to discuss remedies at that point and one remedy would be to amend our charter to support the new Board mandated reality. What I expect would happen is that during the review period for this new constituency, the issue would come up, and if after comments and discussion the Board was going to approve a constituency they would include a mandated change to our charter in the same, or accompanying motion. Of course we would have to see at that time what the bottom up reaction from the SG to such top down behavior from the Board would be. But as I said, I do not expect the Board to behave in such a peremptory manner and if they do, we will have lots of time to react before they actually do it.
Concluding, I believe that the Board is sincere in indicating that they want to see the bottom-up charter that the NCSG produces and they want to consider that charter and whether it meets the mission and goals of ICANN and the GNSO on its own merits and not based on our concern for what they may decide to do. Time enough to react to what they might do, when and if they do it.
Response by Debbie Hughes
Thanks for the background, Robin. I think we agree that groups of NCSG members with similar interests should be able to affiliate and have their voice heard and recognized within ICANN. I would prefer more clarity before making the decision "either/or" rather than permitting Interest Groups and constituencies to coexist until there is some certain about the consequences of disbanding constituencies.
I participate on the same working group with Rafik – GNSO Operations Steering Committee, Constituency & Stakeholder Group Operating Work Team. One of the OSC tasks that the working group is currently considering is "Task 1: "Enhance existing constituencies by developing recommendations on constituency participation rules, operating principles, and database of members". The current version of the document has no mention of Interest Groups or the Interest Group concept and does not provide or support/resources or recognition that support/resources should be provided for Interest Groups. I joined the Work Group at the end of the Seoul meeting after the majority of the deliberations and draft was completed so I agreed to focus on another Task of this group; however, I wonder if the group ever discussed Interest Groups or the desire to provide recommendations, support and resources for Interest Groups in the report. Perhaps Rafik can explain why that document does not mention support and operations recommendations for Interest Groups. The report mentions constituencies and Stakeholder Groups, but there is no mention of Interest Groups. Or maybe there are other documents the working group has produced for other tasks that mention resourcing for Interest Groups, because, I have not seen them.
If the consensus from the community has been that Interest Groups will serve the noncommercial community best and should have equally recognition with ICANN as constituencies, it would be nice to see such consensus reflected in the documents that recognize and acknowledge entities within ICANN and the related reports, documents, policies and material prepared by ICANN Board and staff. In my opinion, I would be very reluctant to disband a constituency an opportunity to without having certainty about what that means within ICANN. I suppose this is an issue to address with the SIC and Board when discussing the new charter. Perhaps you already have a plan for preemptively addressing that issue, but I would hate to "test" the concept without clarity.
Response by Debbie Hughes
To clarify my thoughts, my concern is not that I don't support Interest Groups. Rather, I think the community should be able to decide how it
wants to affiliate and if the community thinks Interest Groups are important then the entire ICANN community should support that concept throughout its lexicon, recommendations, messaging, policies, etc. From what I have seen, we aren't there.
Response by Rafik Dammak
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?
Response by Milton Mueller
This is a very revealing comment, Rafik.
I think this rather definitively answers Debbie and Rosemary's concerns. The fact of the matter is that everything Rafik is telling us - and everything I have heard from staff and Board - is that ICANN is perfectly willing to support SGs in the same way and for the same reason that it supported constituencies.
So if we're going to debate constituency silos vs. an integrated SG let's do it on the merits, and not say that it has something to do with ICANN support. Of course, we have been doing that for more than 2 years now, so it's not a new argument. I'd refer people to the presentation NCUC made to the Board at the Seoul meeting, which seemed to settle the matter at least as far as the Board and SIC are concerned.
Proposed Resolution: no change
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
RS-6 2.4.3 (question)
Can a chair serve a maximum of 2 consecutive years?
Answer: Yes.
Proposed Handling: No change
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
As was discussed when Rosemary made the same suggestion, the Board has left this up to us. If this is what the Stakeholder group wants, and this is what I am understanding the consensus to be. The Board wants to see the charter thatNCSG wants to propose. The Board has made this very clear in discussion we have had with them - they are not limiting us to the Staff's interpretation of the previous Board's viewpoint.
I also point out, that 2 Board approved Stakeholder Groups, albeit transitional, already have charters that do not include Board approved Constituencies. But that is in sense beside the point. It is up to the consensus of the NCSG membership.
Additionally as Rafik mentioned in the previous discussion o tis point, in the Stakeholder/Constituencies Work Team, they have left the whole issue of support open for both Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies - the choice being a bottom up choice within each group.
If I find that after you email, the consensus of the group has changed and people agree with you that we should have constituencies instead of Interest-Groups, I will change the charter accordingly. However, at this point without some evidence of a changed consensus, I cannot make this particular change.
As I said it is up to the NCSG to present the charter it wants to the Board. Should they decide that they want us to have constituencies, they will send it back telling us so and we can discuss and negotiate with them if we wish. On the other hand if they accept the charter, as I expect they will, then it is up to the Board, and the staff acting on their will, to make sure that our Stakeholder Group with its Interest-groups get the proper and equivalent level of support. And it will be up to our leadership to make sure that happens. That is what it means to have bottom process, approved by the Board and supported by the Staff.
Issues brought by Debbie Hughes
DH1 question regarding individual membership
1. An Individual who has registered domain name(s) for personal, family or other noncommercial use;
2. An Individual Internet user who is primarily concerned with the non-commercial 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 large noncommercial organization (universities, colleges, large NGOs) 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 equallyhughesdeb1 ).
hughesdeb1I am not sure I understand the distinction between #2 and #3. Why is #3 needed if we have #2?
I think the most important thing about clause 3 is that it indicates that an individual who is employed in an NGO or other noncommercial can join even if his or her organization doesn't, and it gives the EC some leeway to limit the number that join from a specific non member organization if needed. Yes, some of this can be interpreted from other points in the charter, but I beleive it does no harm to be explicit.
Proposed Resolution: No change
DH2 - change waiting period from 60 days to 30 days before a new member can vote.
Any NCSG Member who has been a member for at least 30hughesdeb1 days from the date of the election is eligible to nominate candidates, vote in NCSG elections, and propose amendments to the NCSG Charter.
hughesdeb1Tow months seems like a long tome to sit on the sidelines.
The reason for the longer period is to prevent ballot stuffing. At 30 days, a ballot process is usually already in process so 60 was seen as a good margin of safety. But this will probably be a rare occasion and can be changed should we see gaming by amending the charter.
Proposed resolution: Accept the change
Issues brought by Alex Gakuru
AG1 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.
AG2
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.
Answer from Avri : 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.
AG3 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'?
Answer from Avri: I 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
AG4
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?
Answer from Avri: 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
AG5
question 3: or should any such above persons join in their individuals capacity?
Answer from Avri: If the meet the criteria for Individuals, they certainly that is an option.
Proposed Resolution: no change
AG6
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
Answer from Avri: Good point:
Proposed Resolution: drop names of examples.
replace existing with:
online document collaboration tools as well as available network cloud based tools
AG7
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?)
Answer from Avri: Yes, thank you.
Proposed Resolution: fix
Issues brought by Desiree Miloshevic
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?
_ Response from: Norbert Klein_
Just in case: If somebody from http://www.dalailama.com or the like
would like to get involved in ICANN communications
discussion/participation, where should they go?
Response from Desiree Miloshevic
Thanks. You answered my question by raising another question.
Diversity of views and inclusiveness is good and while there is no reason to limit the sphere of participation of any potentially non-commercial interested parties outright, I wonder if if the NCSG would be better off by amending its charter when a particular group request or formation of a religious interest group comes up.
_Response from andrew Adams
While I am not religious myself, indeed am a Bright, there are a large number of religious organisations which operate along non-profit grounds (US evangelical scams aside). If we're listing a relatively comprehensive set of types of non-profit organisation, religion should be in there.
Response from Avri
In reading this proposed change which came in shortly before he review closed, and the responses received, I do not believe that we have consensus on making this change at this time.
Proposed Resolution: No change
Issue brought forward by Avri Doria
the charter was not explicit in it base voting requirement
Resolution: Add to 2.2
"Unless otherwise specified voting is on a majority basis.
