<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>I think this is absolutely the way to go forward. In my opinion,
we could add policy related tasks to some of the regional
representative positions and EC members, through procedures (i.e.
without changing the Charters). As long as NPOC and NCUC continue
to get along and can put their shoulders to the wheel in terms of
work distribution, we could achieve more results and produce
better pdp work and comments without getting rid of the
constituencies.</p>
<p>As James Gannon has pointed out, there are only a few people
doing most of the actual work. I can personally attest to the fact
that if you expect the Chair of NCSG to attend all the required SG
meetings, do all the admin work for NCSG, attend the Council
meetings and our policy committee, participate in the drafting of
our common statements, and also staff a couple of pdps and review
committees.....like the RDS Review II where I was alone in
representing the civil society interest and we were travelling all
over for yet more meetings....you are dreaming. Every NCSG Chair
that I have talked to recently has found it a heavy burden. We
know that the PDP work and Review team work is very heavy, yet we
expect our leaders to participate. Personally, I have put up with
quite a few complaints from fellow EPDP members that I have not
written or led our comments....just for the benefit of those not
paying attention, those meetings have been twice a week, for 2
hours, with review homework and complex legal opinions arriving
the night before, or on Friday night so you have something to work
on over the weekend. Coordinating our response among the 6 full
time members and our 3 alternates would be a worthy admin task to
outsource to someone less busy, just as one example of the kind of
help we need. <br>
</p>
<p>As Raphael has pointed out, all of our public facing web presence
materials are out of date. Folks are quick to criticize if one of
us (cough cough) relies on them and produces inaccurate summaries
or decisions, but very slow to volunteer to help.</p>
<p>There are plenty of other more pressing issues that I as a
privacy advocate and expert ought to be focusing on (long list
available if anyone is interested, oversight of facial recognition
systems and AI being the top two at the moment). However, I am
deeply concerned that this organization which I love, despite all
its warts and foibles, is decreasing in its effectiveness and
impact at ICANN. Yes it is true that the bigger picture is that
ICANN is overdue for a reorganization itself. We need to get our
act together before that, so that we can ensure we don't get
written out of existence.</p>
<p>Returning to Tomslin's point, travel support is not currently
available for mentors and committee chairs, other than on a trial
or exceptional basis. This is a problem we could rectify by
ensuring that our elected representatives in admin positions are
taking on these tasks. If we list the job descriptions and hourly
workload of the various positions which Rafik outlined in his list
of funded NCSG travellers, and compare that to the hours and tasks
assigned to PDP and review team workers, we will see the stark
reality of how we distribute our workoad. Most of us, I believe,
still regard ICANN travel as a perc. It is certainly one way we
recognize the unpaid work that many of us are doing on the PDPs,
and given that this unpaid work is likely to be invisible to most
in a new, virtual meetings world, I do worry how many are
dedicated enough to the cause to continue.<br>
</p>
<p>Kind regards,</p>
<p>Stephanie Perrin<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2020-07-11 10:34 p.m., Tomslin
Samme-Nlar wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAM8DdeWPf+6HTQ-P-1tVnh9rrnnV=AFF1O80yjgCn0prOyGxEg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="auto">It is also possible that we could break these
issues into smaller ones and deal with them in phases.
<div dir="auto">For example, it may be quicker to solve the
issue of funding by looking at a rework of the travel/funding
policies of the stakeholder group and its constituencies to
increase focus on policy work than waiting for a merger before
looking into the issue.<br>
<br>
<div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto">Cheers,<br>
Tomslin<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun., 12 Jul. 2020, 06:11
Arsène Tungali, <<a href="mailto:arsenebaguma@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">arsenebaguma@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto">Good point!</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Jul 11, 2020, 8:47
PM James Gannon <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:lists@icann.guru"><lists@icann.guru></a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="en-CH">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I certainly
would like to support work on this going forward,
with the caveat that I would like to see any work
on this being focused strongly around reducing the
amount of administrative positions we have to a
minimum and instating additional support roles
dedicated to actual real policy work on the
ground. We are far too heavy on regional and
administrative roles that are unrelated to our
policy work, whereas refactoring that to diverse
policy roles with clear roles and responsibilities
and accountabilities to deliver on policy work, be
that policy and position papers, active work on
PDPs or other similar outcomes related
measurements. If we don’t frame any such
structural change around that goal set then we
will be doomed to just repeat the situation we are
already in, just under one banner.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"
lang="EN-US">---</span><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"
lang="EN-US"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black"
lang="EN-US">James Gannon</span></b><span></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From: </span></b><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">NCSG-Discuss
<<a
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>>
on behalf of Stephanie E Perrin <<a
href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@MAIL.UTORONTO.CA"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">stephanie.perrin@MAIL.UTORONTO.CA</a>><br>
<b>Reply to: </b>Stephanie E Perrin <<a
href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@MAIL.UTORONTO.CA"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">stephanie.perrin@MAIL.UTORONTO.CA</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Saturday, 11 July 2020 at 19:19<br>
<b>To: </b>"<a
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>"
<<a
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: A Proposal to Merge NCSG,
NCUC and NPOC for More Efficiency in ICANN’s DNS
Work</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<p>First, I would like to thank Sam for his thoughtful
and thorough post which started this discussion. It
is long overdue, in my opinion.</p>
<p>As Sam indicated, our history show that we have had
quite a bit of friction and fruitless arguing over
the arrival of NPOC and the readjustment of the
former NCUC and the new NCSG to include the new
constituency. NPOC itself has gone through a fair
bit of soul searching as it developed its new
Charter. I am personally very happy that the
current management team, Joan Kerr, Bruna Santos,
and I have got along very amicably and cooperated,
particularly during this last difficult year. I
think it has helped engender the trust and
thoughtful discussion that might actually allow us
to talk about the pros and cons of this "merger".</p>
<p>As Raymond pointed out, however, NCSG as the
overall body which elects 6 councillors to the GNSO,
already exists. Any councillor represents NCSG, not
his or her chosen constituency.
</p>
<p>I had intended to advance on this discussion during
my tenure as NCSG Chair, but circumstances have not
favored the introduction of such discussions.
However, we are now facing a dramatic re-imagining
of how ICANN is going to do business, and potential
travel restrictions for a long time to come. It is
a great time to talk about different ways of being a
successful stakeholder group, and perhaps developing
different roles for some of our elected leaders,
rather than simply repeating administrative
functions. This is particularly important, given
the scarcity of volunteers actively working on
policy issues. I will put together a google
document with pros and cons, as Dorothy suggested,
and post it to the list.</p>
<p>Thanks to Raph for digging out more correct
numbers, I will check the membership lists and get
back to you all with the precise numbers.</p>
<p>Stephanie Perrin</p>
<p>NCSG Chair</p>
<p> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 2020-07-11 10:49 a.m.,
Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi all, </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Just for the record, all in
all ncsg is in the 800 members range,
including orgs and individual members. But I
see that we need to update certain
public-facing pages in that regard. It's been
noted and will be acted upon as far as NCSG is
concerned. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I'm also looking forward to
a plan regarding Sam's proposal, that aligns
identified issues and their proposed solution.
Like many others I'm not against a merger, on
the contrary rather. But it would necessarily
be a long process, and it must be one carried
forward by a group of dedicated members and
not by the ECs as ECs (and maybe not even by
EC members as individuals, depending on
charter language). Not only is this a charter
requirement like James pointed out, but it is
also a long-term legitimacy requirement. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">And it must be a process
that will aim to solve concrete issues we are
facing. For example: if we have a problem with
allocation of travel support, a big merger in
itself will not solve this, but changes to the
travel support policy of SG and Cs will. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Have a nice weekend, </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Sat, Jul 11, 2020, 10:02
James Gannon <a
href="mailto:lists@icann.guru"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">
<lists@icann.guru></a> wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid
#cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">In the last
election we had 240 voters. Of which I
would estimate 15% are actually involved
in any work.</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sent from my iPhone</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
</p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">On 11 Jul
2020, at 14:53, Sam Lanfranco <<a
href="mailto:lanfran@yorku.ca"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">lanfran@yorku.ca</a>>
wrote:</p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">
</span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Dorothy,
et. al.,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">I
could be way off on membership.
Better indicators are active
participation and voter turnout.
</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">The
ICANNWiki pages for NCSG, NCUC are
one or two years out of date. NCSC
claims 500 members
</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">The
NPOC ICANNWiki page is up to data
and links to a list of 100
members.
</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Not
counting those who are just NCSG
members we are in the 600 claimed
member range.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Without
diminishing the heroic work of
NCSG/NCUC/NPOC volunteers, that
still leaves us a</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">weak
leg on the ICANN multistakeholder
stool.
</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Sam
</span></p>
<blockquote
style="border:none;border-left:solid
black 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm
4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">----
Original Message ----<br>
<b>From</b>: dorothy g <<a
href="mailto:dgdorothydg@GMAIL.COM"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">dgdorothydg@GMAIL.COM</a>><br>
<b>To</b>: <a
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
<b>Sent</b>: Sat, Jul 11, 2020,
9:29 AM<br>
<b>Subject</b>: Re: A Proposal to
Merge NCSG, NCUC and NPOC for More
Efficiency in ICANN’s DNS Work</span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">I
agree. If someone could help
us with a table of pros and
cons</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">I
was also surprised that the
total membership is only
around 300?</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>