<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Will all of this not change as we move to hybrid meetings?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Should we organise a virtual intersessional?</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 5:58 AM Rafik Dammak <<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div>One thing I overlooked is the interessional meeting between NCSG and CSG as we didn't hold for the last 2 years. If I am not misremembering the number, it is 2 days F2F meeting with 21 travel split as 7 slots to each group. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Best,</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Rafik <br><br><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Jul 12, 2020, 14:47 Rafik Dammak <<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com" target="_blank">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>hi all,</div><div><br></div><div>while I don't have comments yet about the proposal, I can share some details about travel support and add information to share background:</div><div><br></div><div>Travel support</div><div>* Regular support</div>1- There are 6 travel slots for NCSG representatives to GNSO council. I think in terms of budget, they are assigned to GNSO council not NCSG per se but still any elected councillor gets to attend the 3 ICANN meetings and in the last 3 years the GNSO Council SPS meeting.<div>2- 3 travel slots to each group (3 for NCSG, 3 for NCUC and 3 for NPOC). I believe they are given to excom like for other stakeholder groups and constituencies. 1 slot on each group goes to the chair in practice.</div><div>3- There is also 1 for NCUC nomcom representative for ICANN meetings and other nomcom F2F meetings.</div><div>4- CROP travel slots for outreach and that program went through several changes (I cannot recall the exact number) . It is only available to NCUC and NPOC and as far I recall it doesn't cover a whole ICANN meeting if a slot is used for that purpose.</div><div><br></div><div>* Ad-hoc or temporary support</div><div>Other travel support to NCSG representatives (appointed directly or indirectly by NCSG)</div><div> - travel support to any NCSG representative appointed to specific review teams (ATRT, SSR RT, RDS RT, CCT) to attend their F2F meetings. The number of slots varies as the appointment to those review teams go through GNSO council.</div><div> - there was travel support for NCSG representatives to CCWG and CWG for their F2F meetings. Things are also evolving and we need to take into account the possible future of PDP WG. With PDP 3.0 and what was done with EPDP in terms of a representational model for WG, future PDPs might be different from what we had before. For example, we have 6 representatives to the EPDP team and there was a budget for that WG to have F2F meetings, the representatives could participate in those meetings with the travel support. It also covered subject to approval ICANN meetings too when there were EPDP sessions. That can be the case or not in the next PDPs initiated by GNSO in future. PDP 3.0 indicates that requesting resources and specific support should be done at the chartering phase.</div><div><br></div><div>There is also a GNSO pilot project to support WG leadership (chairs, vice chairs, subgroup leaders) and I believe some of our members benefited from it. It is not targeting NCSG but it is another opportunity for active volunteers.<br></div><div>With covid-19, F2F meetings remain uncertain even if the proposal from ICANN to go back to meetings is to start first with WG or other groups small F2F meetings.<br></div><div><br></div><div>There are other important kind of support:</div><div>- we have admin support with Maryam , for the 3 groups. In case of having only NCSG, she might continue with some time allocation but also assigned partly to other community support decided by ICANN org .</div><div>- we have membership database support, for each group. it should be checked if that will continue and to which level.</div><div><br></div><div>Other possible resources are on demand basis and subject to approval: the additional budget requests in every fiscal year to fund specific activity , requested by NCSG, NCUC or NPOC and subject to approval by ICANN (finance team with consultation with others relevant department). This shouldn't change because of any restructuring as it depends on the nature of requested and proposed activities to be funded.</div><div><br></div><div>I hope that clarifies and gives ideas about what the group gets as support. </div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div><br></div><div>Rafik</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le dim. 12 juil. 2020 à 11:38, Tomslin Samme-Nlar <<a href="mailto:mesumbeslin@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">mesumbeslin@gmail.com</a>> a écrit :<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><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 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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">arsenebaguma@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);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 <lists@icann.guru> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div 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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">---</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">James Gannon</span></b><span><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(181,196,223);padding:3pt 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">NCSG-Discuss <<a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>> on behalf of Stephanie E Perrin <<a href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@MAIL.UTORONTO.CA" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">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 noreferrer" target="_blank">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 noreferrer" target="_blank">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>" <<a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">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<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></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.<u></u><u></u></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".<u></u><u></u></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.
<u></u><u></u></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.<u></u><u></u></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.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p>Stephanie Perrin<u></u><u></u></p>
<p>NCSG Chair<u></u><u></u></p>
<p><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 2020-07-11 10:49 a.m., Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi all, <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></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. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></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. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></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. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Have a nice weekend, <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Sat, Jul 11, 2020, 10:02 James Gannon <a href="mailto:lists@icann.guru" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">
<lists@icann.guru></a> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1pt solid rgb(204,204,204);padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt">In the last election we had 240 voters. Of which I would estimate 15% are actually involved in any work.<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sent from my iPhone<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt">On 11 Jul 2020, at 14:53, Sam Lanfranco <<a href="mailto:lanfran@yorku.ca" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">lanfran@yorku.ca</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">Dorothy, et. al.,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">I could be way off on membership. Better indicators are active participation and voter turnout.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">The ICANNWiki pages for NCSG, NCUC are one or two years out of date. NCSC claims 500 members
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">The NPOC ICANNWiki page is up to data and links to a list of 100 members.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">Not counting those who are just NCSG members we are in the 600 claimed member range.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">Without diminishing the heroic work of NCSG/NCUC/NPOC volunteers, that still leaves us a<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">weak leg on the ICANN multistakeholder stool.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">Sam
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<blockquote style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1.5pt solid black;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">---- Original Message ----<br>
<b>From</b>: dorothy g <<a href="mailto:dgdorothydg@GMAIL.COM" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">dgdorothydg@GMAIL.COM</a>><br>
<b>To</b>: <a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">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<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">I agree. If someone could help us with a table of pros and cons<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">I was also surprised that the total membership is only around 300?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div>stay well, kind regards</div>Dorothy Gordon</div></div>