NPOC Comment Re: Member Admission Process and Member Databases

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi Sam,

thanks for those comments, however I am putting some remarks below because
some assumptions you made

>
> Briefly reviewing the membership process, applicants apply for membership
> in the NCSG stakeholders group, and may (are urged to) apply for membership
> in one of the two constituency groups (NCUC and NPOC). Within the
> membership guidelines any non-commercial person or organization can also
> apply to the NCUC constituency group, but only not-for-profit organizations
> can apply to the NPOC constituency group.
>
> *The membership application process:*
>
> If one reviews the membership information and application processes on
> ICANN, NCSG, NCUC and NPOC it is clear that a constituent interested in
> membership can be left a bit confused. There is a need for a single common
> application form, located at one or more websites, with a common return to
> relevant membership committees, initially for NCSG consideration and
> NCUC/NPOC information, and subsequently for NCUC/NPOC consideration.
>
>
prospective NCSG applicants are asked to apply here
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/How+to+Join
NCUC indicate here http://www.ncuc.org/participate/become-a-member/ to
future members to go that form
while NPOC sounds adding another layer to the process and request
additional application to be filled http://npoc.org/?p=membershipinfo

so yes we have already a single common application form which also ask
applicants if they want to join constituency. its improvement was discussed
at EC and Lori Schulman volunteered to make proposals to add fields to get
better info from future members while keeping the application simple.
the members of NCSG EC from each constituency are supposed to liaise with
groups committees regarding those who want to join them.

There is also a need for more clarity about the membership options, and for
> fields within the common form that allow an applicant to at that time
> request (or not request) subsequent consideration for NCUC or NPOC
> membership. This is a well-defined task that could be addressed by a small
> ad hoc committee made up of ICANN staff and NCSG, NCUC and NPOC members.
> Such committee would not address membership issues that are Charter issues
> but could identify and report such issues back to NCSG.
>

not sure to get your point here and I may see some overengineering.
as I said , applicants already select to join NCUC, NPOC, both or none when
he/she fills the form . the issue is not the form or review by NCSG EC, it
is about how constituencies handles those new applicants in regard to their
own processes. some suggestions was to delegate the decision to NCSG EC
members to  confirm applications for their respective constituencies.


>
> *Maintaining the membership database:*
>
> NCSG, NCUC and NPOC are part of ICANN and should be using Internet best
> practices for maintaining usable and up to date membership information.
> There are existing Internet best practices that can be drawn on to achieve
> those objectives.
>
> First, from a technical standpoint, from a user standpoint, and as
> reflected in the expressed views of Internet savvy NCSG members, there
> should be one master NCSG database with fields indicating NCUC and NPOC
> membership. This would allow those with approval the ability to access one
> or more of the NCSG, NCUC and NPOC views of the database.
>
> we have already one master NCSG database file.
the fields for constituency exist already in particular for those who
applied with the current form, in addition to other information. however
 it need to be confirmed since the approval to join a constituency is done
at its level and getting confirmation back. that is how I could send you
for your last NPOC election the list of NPOC members extracted from NCSG
database while warning that you need to double-check if you approved them
or not.

I am working with the admin support to clean-up, consolidate the existing
NCSG membership list and working to update info for some organizational
members after the check-in process for the last election.

The majority of the fields in the membership database should be populated
> directly by field information from the membership application form. NCSG,
> NCUC, and NPOC may wish additional fields, either embedded in the overall
> NCSG database or added as custom fields to an extracted subset of
> membership data, possibly for special events or initiatives. The master
> NCSG database will always serve as the membership list of record.
>
>
yes membership database fields are already filled form the current form ,
only old records may miss some information and they can populate by
contacting members.
I would advise to not add more additional fields not directly related to
applications or aimed for specific purpose. that should be in another
list/table which link to NCSG membership list.

There are a number of issues with regard to the management of the
> membership database that require some discussion so that NCSG can take a
> position on them. They include:
>
> 1.      Dialogue between the effort to construct the proper fields for the
> membership application and the field information desired by NCSG, NCUC and
> NPOC.
>

NCSG EC is tasked to work on improving the application , and work started
already. EC members should liaise with their respective groups


>
> 2.      Where should the membership database be hosted? Should it be on an
> ICANN server or elsewhere?
>

while we are involved in ICANN, we have to be independant on our internal
 management matters. we have public  NCSG membership list for transparency
. I don't think any other group in GNSO is using ICANN platform for
critical matter like membership but they should provide public list of the
membership which is missing for many.
so membership database or list must be kept at NCSG.


> 3.      Who should have what levels of access to the membership database?
>

NCSG EC and Chair are tasked to maintain the database and update it (refer
to NCSG charter). maybe EC for constituencies may have access to view-only
mode .


> 4.      Should members have password protected access to their own
> profiles in order to update information (especially important for
> organizations)?
>

we don't have such solution yet and this need development to support user
management, authentication, authorization and which data they can access.
 members just need to update records by informing the NCSG chair during the
check-in election process. if an organization don't do that during a
check-in period, it is unlikely to do it in other time.

>
> 5.      Should profile access by via the ICANN dashboard?
>

which ICANN dashboard?how many people from NCSG use them regularly? so many
initiative launched with random adoption by the community or any clear
added value. as software engineer, I am more in favor of KISS principle (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle) , lets keep things simple and
focused at this stage. any additional feature can be done later.

hope that helps,

Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20140927/316ed3aa/attachment.htm>