New member admission process and member databases

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi Martin,

I hope that I can clarify the situation here for you . as laywe, I think
you will find some time to read the NCSG charter which explain the
principles and give you better understanding :
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Charter

I just never fully understood why NCUC and NPOC do not handle their own
> application process.
>

NCUC and NPOC handle their applications process, NCSG only approve NCSG
members who may or not want to join constituencies, it is up to NCUC and
NPOC to approve them as their members.


> Why do people need to be NCSG first?
>
>
>
It would seem more useful that the NCSG where just an umbrella for NPOC and
> NCUC to help coordinate the NCUC and NPOC leaders.
>

yes we need NCSG, in fact constituencies cannot exist without it, they can
be created and disbanded while the SG remains. it is not just in umbrella,
a concept which may lead to the misunderstanding. it has the committees
populated with representation from  constituencies and also elected
officers like the NCSG chair and also the election of  GNSO councillors to
represent the whole stakeholder group.

I think you observed  several times how many policies are discussed and
statement done at the SG level.

the stakeholder group model also exist in other parts of GNSO such the
contracted party (registries and registrars )where there is no constituency
per se.

 The present way of having NCSG members that are also NCUC and NPOC creates
> a double representation that can be confusing, misleading and
> dysfunctional. Am I clear with this idea?
>
>
>
there is confusion here, a NCSG member can be just a NCSG member without
joining constituencies or joining both or just 1 ot them  . joining a
constituency may be important for a member to work on some topic if s/he
wants but it is not mandatory.
there is no double representation but more diversity of representation and
affiliation. I don't think you disagree with this.

I think the NCSG should not act like a stakeholder itself but as a
> coalition of the stakeholder that make part of it, therefore, the NCSG
> would just be the place where NCUC and NPOC community leaders meet to take
> things up. If not, it seems that the decision made in the NCUC or in NPOC
> through the consensus are not valued.
>

if NCUC or NPOC want to make their statements or own positions, they are
not prevented to do so. having NCSG ensure having a more common positions
and avoid building silos that won't communicate with each other and weaken
them  . at NCSG we work to build a position that have consensus of larger
group, don't you think that is really strong? constituencies can also send
their own statement to defend other points than a common position if they
want.

It makes no sense that the same members that debate and reach consensus in
> NCUC and NPOC separately are the ones that debate about the same decision
> and reach a new and different consensus in the NCSG. The decision of NPOC
> and NCUC should be considered equal inside the NCSG and the NCSG decision
> should be a higher hierarchy consensus that brings together the already
> consensus made in NCUC and NPOC (a consensus of consensus in an upper level
> than the bottom stakeholder). I believe than the current process takes away
> consensus from the real bottoms, NPOC and NCUC, and brings a dysfunctional
> dynamic where NCUC and NPOC voices, especially NPOC’s, are diluted for no
> real reason thanks to a double representation of NCUC and NPCO members in
> the NCSG as NCSG members.
>

the constituencies have the same representation in the executive and policy
committees, so they are able to provide their positions via their
representatives who should liaise with their constituencies, in particular
for the latter regarding the policies.
at NCSG ,we allow all members to communicate and debate  together and so
 avoid a silo effect that will prevent members of different groups from
discussing with each other.

we have real bottom-up process here: the individual and organizational
members who can participate directly at NCSG level and expressing their
ideas . don't you think that is really powerful and avoid voices trapped in
structures level?



> Just and idea, don't bite my head off!
>
>
>
no worry, all comments are welcome, it is learning space for everybody.
hope that clarified things for you.

Rafik

>
>
> 2014-09-22 11:10 GMT-03:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:
>
> agree completely.
>>
>> avri
>>
>> On 22-Sep-14 04:40, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>> > Which brings me to one technical issue I've been harping about
>> > to various people privately for some time: I see little point
>> > in maintaining three distinct member databases, when two
>> > are (required to be) subsets of the third. It would be much
>> > easier to maintain just NCSG member database and have
>> > constituency membership there as an attribute
>> > (of course still leaving it up to each constituency to
>> > decide who they accept as their members, they just would
>> > not need to maintain members' contact info &c separately).
>> > This would make for an easy workflow for the three ECs,
>> > one place for members to check their membership details, &c.
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20140922/7bfca1b1/attachment.htm>