<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
And I have only been around for a year and a half, so am still
figuring things out....but I have to agree. We need more hands on
deck in the working groups, and in writing comments. Hands up, who
is going to help craft the comments on the RAA privacy work-around,
due in a couple of weeks?<br>
cheers stephanie perrin<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 14-07-10 8:45 AM, Maria Farrell
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAC7qwdCxD_x2947F-dCoHFVanUY9RZKELcoMut5=Tz7y+71vgQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>I have to agree with Bill - I haven't been around as an
NCUC/NCSG member for the past 15 years, just the past 4 - as
I was part of a new 'intake' that included Amr, Magaly and
others - but I've seen a massive increase in noncommercial
organisational memberships since then, and it's very clear
that the NCSG is the most diverse (and largest?) stakeholder
group in the GNSO. <br>
<br>
But it is the same very small group of people populating
Working Groups - where most of the ACTUAL work of policy
development of the GNSO is now done - all the time. And the
same small group of people writing public comments. <br>
<br>
</div>
So yes, less time and effort worrying about and fomenting
divisions all round, and more time and effort actually doing
the policy work we are here to do, in my book. And if that
means getting rid of divisive structures, fine by me.<br>
<br>
</div>
Maria<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 10 July 2014 12:34, William Drake <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wjdrake@gmail.com" target="_blank">wjdrake@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Klaus<br>
<div class=""><br>
On Jul 10, 2014, at 10:17 AM, Klaus Stoll <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:kdrstoll@GMAIL.COM">kdrstoll@GMAIL.COM</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
> On 7/10/2014 7:55 AM, William Drake wrote:<br>
><br>
> "I don’t think we have less influence because we lack
strategic vision or intestinal fortitude, or that the
"Whack-a-Mole” characterization does justice to the hard
work that people have put in on Council and off over the
past fifteen years. We’ve done what we can with the
resources we have, i.e. volunteer labor and a bit of
madness, and it has mattered."<br>
><br>
> Part of the problem is that over 15 years we have not
managed to get more NFP's involved and consequently not
enough hands on deck.<br>
> NPOC is making an concerted effort to change that and
I hope that our colleagues will join us. Many hands make
easy work.<br>
<br>
</div>
FWIW, NCUC started in 1999 and has 95 “NFP” organizational
members. NPOC started in 2011 and has 47 “NFP”
organizational members. So both are making concerted effort
to get civil society more engaged and welcome colleagues to
join.<br>
<br>
Ideally, the focus of these efforts should be NCSG rather
than constituencies. The most sensible approach might be a
unified stakeholder group in which we don’t waste time and
energy building different sand boxes on the same beach and
confusing people with a fragmented visage and voice. Then
more of us could lend our hands in doing actual policy work
and trying to impact ICANN processes. The few who’ve been
doing this for years could use the help.<br>
<div class="">><br>
><br>
> Everybody, and with me in the forefront, accepts and
respects what has been done by a few with very little,
it's a miracle, but we should expect and put into place
what my old teachers wrote beneath many of my exam papers:
"could and should do better!". (Not much has changed since
then I am afraid). Given the importance of the Internet
and Ig today, we have no other choice and that includes to
look very critically and constructively at our-self and
the structures we help create, serve and maintain.<br>
<br>
</div>
Total agreement. Can we have that constructive look at our
structures, and how best to advance civil society’s
interests in ICANN?<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Bill<br>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5">><br>
><br>
><br>
>> Hi<br>
>><br>
>> On Jul 9, 2014, at 5:57 PM, Horacio T. Cadiz
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:hcadiz@ph.net">hcadiz@ph.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> On July 4, 2014 1:51:46 AM Sam Lanfranco
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:lanfran@YORKU.CA">lanfran@YORKU.CA</a>>
wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>>> This is in marked contrast to how the
commercial and government<br>
>>>> constituencies approach these issues.
They maintain both early warning<br>
>>>> and early intervention systems. As has
been pointed out, business<br>
>>>> constituency lobbyists are already at
work in the halls of government<br>
>>>> advancing their strategic interests in
the IANA transition process.<br>
>>>> Their 360 degree assessment
(environmental scan) assumes early and<br>
>>>> sustained intervention as ongoing
process, one which by the way breeds<br>
>>>> familiarity and has benefits beyond the
Policy-Mole at hand. This is the<br>
>>>> opposite of a Whack-a-Mole strategy. In
the case of RC, they understood<br>
>>>> this and used their clout to act more
like commercial stakeholder<br>
>>>> protagonists.<br>
>>> I don't think the difference in strategy is
by choice. This difference in strategy is a result<br>
>>> of NCSG (and not-for-profits, in general)
not having the resources to continuously lobby<br>
>>> the powers-that-be. The
business-affiliated constituencies have the funding to
do this.<br>
>> I couldn’t agree more. I don’t think we have
less influence because we lack strategic vision or
intestinal fortitude, or that the "Whack-a-Mole”
characterization does justice to the hard work that
people have put in on Council and off over the past
fifteen years. We’ve done what we can with the
resources we have, i.e. volunteer labor and a bit of
madness, and it has mattered.<br>
>><br>
>> Bill<br>
>><br>
><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>