Proposal for NCSG Charter Amendment

[Remmy Nweke]

Dear Amr and colleagues,
Thanks Amr, Arsene and othrs for the interventions.
I could not respond soon because I just returned from a court session
yesterday and joined another long meeting of CSOs where I am presiding. So
apologies for delayed response.

Be that as it may, Amr, I will attempt to answer you from my perspective
although Thato did well in stepping in.

The truth is that despite all those claiming all is well or rather
pretending some of them are on their second missionary journey in FC, I
will be glad for them to frankly tell us what they have been able to
achieve in past over 8 years the charter has been there as FC. Why was it
so difficult to even draft OP until last year when some of us joined
NCSG-FC.

My findings was that the activities were largely stalled because of
ambiguity of the charter either in the inability of understanding or
interpretation so it marvel's me when some of us who should know began to
sound like retired politicians.

Another instance outside the ones earlier mentioned or outlined which most
people who hitherto agreed there are issues with the Charter who are now
singing differently, is the fact that of opening an account for instance to
streamline the FC to be partially inand associated modalities which either
entails that they are comfortable the way things are because of self
aggrandizement or something they are yet to tell us, but often turn around
to say NCSG is using their personal stuff yet will not strengthen the
Charter to pave way for transparency and accountability.

And for any organization to run transparently and strong should be incharge
of its own account and why has it taken 8+ years, yet not resolved. Either
we remove that aspect from the Charter or amend it according to the
dictates of today, transparency and openness in governance.

Why are some people afraid of FC engaging ICANN finance or ICANN.org are
there some hidden agendas? If we are not comfortable with that we ought to
amend it or espurge same clause.

Coming to one of your questions on having someone an elected EC of NCSG
presenting self to an Constituency is tantamount to bad leadership because
one of the Exco or leadership positions MUST suffer no matter how crafty we
feel about it except such a candidate resigns one afterwards otherwise
there will be conflict of interest which is never declared, rather
candidate protected.

Same is about to happen again if we do not take time as we go for
elections. I am not against anyone in EC vying for an Exco position within
NCSG or elsewhere but if successful in having two positions such a person
should choose one and resign from the other within a given period not
exceeding one month after election, so that the work of our various
constituencies will not suffer and bye-election could be conducted ASAP.

Last year they saw it as a loophole and exploited it. And some one is still
looking to see where NCSG Charter required amendment after condemning the
action last year.

Another one I will like to elaborate if those who care will like to tell
themselves the truth is that a unit cannot successfully carry out the
mandate of FC as contained in the charter currently because FC cannot
function as a Treasurer, internal auditor and external auditor and someone
who understands the principles guiding the trio distinct units in
accounting let alone organizational accounting says there is nothing wrong
with the Charter.

Also there is need for inclusivity in enthroning leadership to ensure
everyone is on same page not seeing others as followers; how then do you
encourage the capacity of representatives from other C who may not have the
carriage in leadership to ask relevant questions, even if it's rotatory
rather than some C thinking the leadership of FC or NCSG PC for instance as
a birthright instead of inclusivity and consensus building. These have to
be Charter effect, not OP as some will like to posit.

Very unfortunate that some of us have blatantly refused to acknowledge
others either because of their colours or a high-powered racism exist in
NCSG.

How can some one who claim to chair a Committee sound as if there is no
draft operation procedure in place even though you may not agree with it's
content which should not amount to denial of efforts by colleagues.

If by this few points of explanation a few of us still can't understand the
need for the proposed Charter amendment then some of us may adopt shorthand
writing.
Best
RN

On Fri, Jun 7, 2019, 15:41 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja> wrote:

> Hi Remmy,
>
> Since I agree that the request to review the charter is vague, let me take
> a stab at asking specific questions I hope you can answer. I’m trying to
> understand what the issue with the Charter is, and what fix you are
> proposing. So far, I’m quite lost. At the risk of being mistaken, I’m
> guessing that the majority of the hundreds of NCSG members you are asking
> to participate in a vote on this are likely as confused as I am.
>
> Please note that my questions are on the substance of your proposal to
> review/amend the Charter, not the process. I’m really trying to wrap my
> head around what problem you’re trying to solve. Please see below:
>
> On Jun 6, 2019, at 8:34 PM, Remmy Nweke <remmyn at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
>
> [SNIP]
>
> 3.   The NCSG Charter in use was approved since May 5, 2011. We all know
> that in this Information and Communication Technology (ICT) sector, moreso
> the Internet or Domain Name System (DNS) industry, the level of disruptions
> have made it imperative for stakeholders like us to be in tune with
> development rather than being hindered by our charter.
>
> 4.   An instance is the aspect of the NCSG Charter which has to do with
> Finance Committee (Section 2.6) coupled with multiplicity of
> interpretations adduced by various members, which to the best of my ability
> has been the bane of why Finance Committee is not and may not work
> optimally to the benefit of its stakeholders in line with its Charter
> mandate.
>
>
> I’m assuming that the part in the Charter on the NCSG Finance Committee is
> what you are referring to as a hinderance to the NCSG. Could you please
> clarify why you believe this to be the case? Specifically, please point out
> exactly which sections in the Charter are a hinderance, as well as
> practical examples that the NCSG has faced (I mean what really happened,
> even if just from your perspective) and had trouble with in the past due to
> this hinderance.
>
> Also, if the problem is limited to interpretation of the Charter (an
> assumption on my part, which you could correct me on, if I’m mistaken),
> could this not be solved in a simpler, quicker and by a less process-heavy
> means than revising the Charter. A Charter revision is a huge process
> involving ICANN Policy Staff and the Organizational Effectiveness Committee
> of the ICANN Board. And that only really kicks in following an extensive
> process the NCSG needs to go through in order to amend the Charter.
> Optimistically, this would take 1-2 years, but might very well take longer
> as has been the case in the past.
>
>
> 9.      We also had instance where an individual was elected into the EC
> of NCSG and still placed self for elective position for an Executive
> Committee of a Constituency within NCSG, as if we are lacking people. The
> truth is that since works here are largely voluntary and for good
> governance, such loopholes should not exist or allowed to exist let alone
> uphold it. As such it negates transparency in leadership.
>
>
> I’m not sure there is anything really wrong with this. The NCSG and NCUC
> are two separate structures. Speaking for myself, being a member of NCSG,
> while not being a member of either of the Constituencies existing within
> the NCSG, I don’t really care whether a member of the NCSG EC is also
> serving on the NCUC or NPOC ECs. All I care about is that this individual
> has the time and capacity to carry out the functions for which her or she
> was elected or appointed.
>
> So long as whoever involved is transparent about seeking to serve in more
> than one capacity, I don’t see what the issue is. Ultimately, the members
> of the NCSG elect a Chair that serves on the NCSG EC, while the NCUC and
> NPOC appoint representatives to the NCSG EC using their own internal
> processes. How they do this internally within their Constituencies is
> really none of the NCSG’s business, so I’m not seeing how the NCSG Charter
> has anything to do with this. Am I missing something? So, what is the
> section in the NCSG Charter you’d like reviewed on this issue, and what
> amendments are you proposing?
>
> Remmy, since you’re asking members of the NCSG to vote in favor of a
> review, then eventually vote for or against specific amendments, please
> help us all understand what you view to be the problem. I’m frankly
> surprised this thread has gone on for so long without this being done.
> Should have been in your first email suggesting the review.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Jun 7, 2019, at 3:58 PM, Remmy Nweke <remmyn at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
> Madam chair,
> In other words what has been proposed was not "concrete" enough and you
> are complaining over sequence of voting?
>
> May be some of us needed some education on what you mean by "concrete
> proposal" and "demand for review"  in your own terms. However, I think we
> should stop playing with semantics and face the reality.
>
> We can't continue to shy away from the fact even if raised by someone we
> may not like.
>
> Best of the day.
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019, 14:03 Stephanie Perrin <
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
>> Thanks James.  Plus, you need a concrete proposal for amendment, not just
>> a demand for review.
>>
>> As soon as you have all that I will be pleased to act on it.
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin
>> On 2019-06-07 08:47, James Gannon wrote:
>>
>> HI Remmy,
>>
>>
>>
>> Just a point of process here, if you wish to propose an amendment to the
>> NCSG charter please ensure that you are compliant with Section 5 of the
>> NCSG Charter which reads as follows (Paraphrased for brevity):
>>
>>
>>
>>    - Proposals to amend this charter may be submitted by 5% of the
>>    current members eligible to vote.
>>
>>
>>
>> So the proposal and secondment by 2 members does not current constitute a
>> valid proposal for amendment as per Section 5 of the Charter and is thus
>> not valid.
>>
>> So the correct statement would be that the ball is currently with you to
>> collect signatures of 5% of the current membership of the NCSG (Based on
>> current numbers this would be approx. 100 signatures depending on voting
>> weights) in order to proceed with your amendment proposal.
>>
>>
>>
>> I trust this is valuable information for someone interested in revising
>> said charter and that the correct process will be followed from here out,
>>
>>
>>
>> -James Gannon
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
>> <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> on behalf of Remmy Nweke
>> <remmyn at GMAIL.COM> <remmyn at GMAIL.COM>
>> *Reply-To: *Remmy Nweke <remmyn at GMAIL.COM> <remmyn at GMAIL.COM>
>> *Date: *Friday, 7 June 2019 at 13:51
>> *To: *"NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
>> <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
>> *Subject: *Re: Proposal for NCSG Charter Amendment
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Stephanie
>>
>> Frankly, I am surprised that you are still asking to see the specific
>> reasons for this Proposal, that means something is terribly wrong then
>> somewhere that I am yet to decipher.
>>
>>
>>
>> Despite alluding to the fact there is need to review the Charter you
>> still want some precise process. I really do not understand that.
>>
>>
>>
>> Those things you listed as having not discussed or agreed on like
>> fundraising etc were all in the Charter as FC role which, I merely brought
>> them forward in the proposal to elucidate on the need for review and not
>> personal views.
>>
>>
>>
>> I had expected you as the chair of NCSG to accept/acknowledge the
>> proposal and make it EC agenda item in the next meeting ASAP and even
>> forthcoming ICANN meeting agenda, and thereafter follow the process with
>> timelines according our Charter instance, not throwing it back to me again
>> for whatever process.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have done my bit by proposing and got seconder from Thato.
>>
>>
>>
>> The ball is now over to NCSG EC please.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Remmy Nweke
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019, 01:44 Stephanie Perrin <
>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Thato and Remmy,
>>
>> Let me be more precise.  What amendments are you proposing?
>>
>> The more concrete your proposals for revision are, the more quickly
>> matters will be resolved.  Drafting of any new Charter amendments does not
>> fall to me, it is incumbent on those wishing to change it to make concrete
>> proposals for change. I am aware of the problems with the original Charter,
>> but I expect there will be considerable divergence of views on what our
>> priorities ought to be in making changes.  For instance, we do not as a
>> stakeholder group agree on the following:
>>
>>    - Should we have membership fees?
>>    - Should we incorporate?
>>    - Should we fundraise?
>>
>> My remarks were not intended to be a "throwback" but if you want changes,
>> please be specific.
>>
>> My priority, as stated earlier and in my candidate statement, is that we
>> participate actively in ICANN's currently ongoing revision of the
>> multi-stakeholder process/model.  I would suggest that we wait till the ink
>> is dry on that procedure, before revising our Charter.  I hope you will
>> tune in on that discussion, and realize the gravity of the situation.
>> There may be radical changes coming in our financial situation and methods
>> of participation.  However, you of course have the right under the Charter
>> to request revision.  Just follow the process.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin
>>
>> On 2019-06-06 17:38, Thato Mfikwe wrote:
>>
>> Hi Remmy,
>>
>>
>>
>> I second the motion to have the Charter reviewed. Thus far I have also
>> noted that sections relating to the Finance Committee need some work to
>> only contain what is applicable, besides the recent organizational vs the
>> individual voting processes that have recently emerged. The charter does
>> not need to be followed partially but holistically without limitation since
>> it is a guiding document on SG activities and processes. I am sure that
>> there will be other amendments as a result of the proposed review.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thato Mfikwe
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 8:49 PM Remmy Nweke <remmyn at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Dear Stephanie and Colleagues in NCSG,
>>
>> Apologies ahead for a lengthy mail.
>>
>> 1.   I do not want to see this as a throwback from madam chair
>> considering the time, which coincides with the ongoing NCSG election and
>> related constituency blocs, I wish to propose for amendment of our NCSG
>> Charter, which came into effect since May 5, 2011.
>>
>> 2.   I am also aware that severally, you as chair among others agreed
>> before now that the Charter needs to be reworked and that Executive
>> Committee (EC) of NCSG has the mandate to present it to the house for
>> review, if you so wish and which I think will be more direct and will end
>> the reoccurring dilemma during elections etc, which you have been trying to
>> explain for a while and safe us the agony in the future.
>>
>> 3.   The NCSG Charter in use was approved since May 5, 2011. We all know
>> that in this Information and Communication Technology (ICT) sector, moreso
>> the Internet or Domain Name System (DNS) industry, the level of disruptions
>> have made it imperative for stakeholders like us to be in tune with
>> development rather than being hindered by our charter.
>>
>> 4.   An instance is the aspect of the NCSG Charter which has to do with
>> Finance Committee (Section 2.6) coupled with multiplicity of
>> interpretations adduced by various members, which to the best of my ability
>> has been the bane of why Finance Committee is not and may not work
>> optimally to the benefit of its stakeholders in line with its Charter
>> mandate.
>>
>> 5.   Inter alia the Section 2.6 stated:
>>
>> 6.      “The NCSG Finance Committee is responsible for establishing a
>> firm financial footing for the NCSG and administering NCSG funds within a
>> defined framework that meets relevant legal requirements as well as
>> requirements imposed by ICANN.
>>
>> 7.       “The NCSG-­ FC’s responsibilities include fund raising, setting
>> voluntary contribution levels for members, determining procedures for the
>> distribution of funds, and for monitoring the utilization of funds.
>>
>> 8.      “The NCSG-­FC will also be responsible for the Treasurer
>> function. Formation of the NCSG-­‐FC, its composition, and duties within
>> the NCSG-­FC are set out in Section 2.6.”
>>
>>
>>
>> 9.      We also had instance where an individual was elected into the EC
>> of NCSG and still placed self for elective position for an Executive
>> Committee of a Constituency within NCSG, as if we are lacking people. The
>> truth is that since works here are largely voluntary and for good
>> governance, such loopholes should not exist or allowed to exist let alone
>> uphold it. As such it negates transparency in leadership.
>>
>> 10.Motion for Amendment:
>>
>> 11.  In accordance with (5.0 Amendments to the NCSG Charter) which states:
>>
>> 12.  “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.
>>
>> 13.  “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.
>>
>> 14.  “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.”
>>
>> 15.   So, based on the aforementioned instances, permit me to move a
>> motion that the NCSG Charter (May 5, 2011) be amended in accordance with
>> Section 5.0, and for EC to take every necessary steps to actualize this. I
>> so moved.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks and accept my highest regards.
>>
>> Remmy Nweke
>>
>> June 6, 2019
>>
>>
>> ____
>> REMMY NWEKE, mNGE,
>> Lead Consulting Strategist/Group Executive Editor,
>> DigitalSENSE Africa Media [Multiple-award winning medium]
>> (DigitalSENSE Business News; ITREALMS, NaijaAgroNet)
>> Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza, Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos
>> M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms
>> Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria
>>
>> 2019 Nigeria DigitalSENSE Forum on IG4D & Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable
>> JOIN us!!
>>
>> *Vice President, African Civil Society on the Information Society (ACSIS)
>>
>> NPOC FC Rep @ICANN Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG)
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and
>> attachments are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is
>> intended only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not
>> accept legal responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not
>> the intended recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this
>> document and do not disclose the contents of this document to any other
>> person, nor make any copies. Violators may face court persecution.
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20190608/3cc65eff/attachment.htm>