<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>I believe Nadira suggested we form a working group to examine the
possibilities, risks and advantages of how to improve our
effectiveness whilst examining our structures. Those interested
in the Charters of other SGs in the GNSO may be interested in the
recently amended Charter of the RySG. Obviously, we are very
different than the Registries, but their Charter encompasses the
vast range of economic size, from gigantic to very small, and
recognizes "interest groups". It is here
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://84e2b371-5c03-4c5c-8c68-63869282fa23.filesusr.com/ugd/ec8e4c_636d8dfd3f68430f97f41f86ffbae167.pdf">https://84e2b371-5c03-4c5c-8c68-63869282fa23.filesusr.com/ugd/ec8e4c_636d8dfd3f68430f97f41f86ffbae167.pdf</a></p>
<p>Let me know if you are interested in joining a working group that
would examine our Charters and see what can be done simply to
improve our situation. The example Bruna gives below, of limiting
CROP grants to those who are participating in PDPs is a good one,
in my opinion we should be looking for easy ways to improve and
reward participation, before we start changing our structures.</p>
<p>As Rafik pointed out, we have support from the GNSO Secretariat
in the form of Maryam Bakoshi. Let me assure you, we would be
lost without her, her work for us in organizing meetings,
arranging for teleconference facilities, keeping the leadership
team on a timetable, administering elections, supporting working
groups, liaising with other responsibility centres in ICANN etc.
should not be underestimated. She supports all three groups, the
two constituencies and the NCSG. Minimizing needless duplication
of her efforts ought to be a goal, in my opinion.</p>
<p>Kind regards, <br>
</p>
<p>Stephanie Perrin<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2020-07-13 12:24 a.m., Bruna Martins
dos Santos wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CADAEEV2uVgChfJcN38bSkrQnYaeGge3WwcZaB48d0z3OMFgfeg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">Dear Sam and all,
<div><br>
Some of my initial reflections on this matter: <br>
<br>
</div>
<div>First of all thank you Sam for raising this
question/proposal. Thinking about a better division of the
work and fine lining the capacities of each representative
across constituencies is something that has been discussed by
a few of us either in the context of elections or in other
times. A proposal like yours has interesting background points
such as reassessing NCSG organizational divisions and also our
constituencies and SG's efficiency. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Something I would add to the list of 'things we need to
work on' would be inreaching efforts or anything that would
help us rebuild our community is something I also see as
necessary. Apart from recruiting new members, reaching out to
the current ones and providing them with any necessary support
for their engagement with our internal discussions and PDPs
should be a goal to the<i> troika. </i></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>But, as Benjamin, I am afraid that putting the three
together might result in having our influence shrinked. Having
different structures and missions under the NCSG umbrella is
something that can be beneficial to our participation at
ICANN, we just need to realign our goals. <br>
</div>
<div><br>
In terms of travel support/prioritizing Policy work, I can
only speak on behalf of NCUC but for the past 2 years the
allocation of CROP slots had as a prerequisite the applicants
involvement with PDPs as an acknowledgement to the hard work
conducted by our PDP members. But considering that we will not
have F2F meetings in the near future and considering ICANN's
proposal of a phased return to meetings - among other reasons
-, I would not focus any discussions regarding possible
restructuration of NCSG solely on access to travel resources. <br>
<br>
</div>
<div>As much as I recognize that the policy work is one of the
most relevant things the three groups can perform I would not
focus NCSGs travel resources exclusively on them because there
is a fair amount of tasks of other nature that are still
needed and often overlooked - and by that I mean
administrative work, allocation of resources and even outreach
work that is relevant to renewing our membership. These
activities are also relevant and anyone who has been in an
administrative position before can understand how overwhelming
they can be.<br>
<br>
Last but not least, considering the unique moment we are at, I
believe that reviewing our participation in meetings and
coming up with a NCSG strategy to virtual meetings would be
more valuable to our SG. Our focus should be improving our
participation in meetings, discussing if and how we should be
participating at them, what sorts of C's meetings are worth
including in the agenda and so on. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>But, as I mentioned above, your proposal has some
interesting points and maybe, starting with a reassessment of
NCSG/NPOC/NCUC efficiency and participation levels can be a
start. <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best regards, </div>
<div>Bruna Santos </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>