NPOC Comment Re: Member Admission Process and Member Databases

[Olévié Kouami]

+1 @Sam.


2014-09-27 20:07 GMT+00:00 Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca>:

>  Rafik,
>
> Thanks for the useful questions and comments, and thanks to Tapani for his
> comments and his expertise. Rather than making a long response I would like
> to extract the key points [numbered] for follow up.
>
> The objective is to manage these two processes while making NCSG and its
> constituency groups, best practice users of the Internet to. This will
> reduce administrative demands on the various executives and volunteers,
> freeing up more time to deal with substantive and policy issues.
>
> One overarching issue has to do with how much ICANN support and
> involvement does NCSG want. Is it is an issue of trust, of efficiency, or
> of optics that suggests that little be hosted on ICANN servers? This needs
> to be discussed, and decisions arrived at. There are pluses and minuses
> whichever way one goes here.  At the moment there are at least three
> independent server sites support NCSG and constituency services.
>
> 1.      We are in agreement with the idea that there should be one
> application form for NCSG that clearly states the constituency
> (NCUC/NPOC/neither) membership options.  The form can reside on NCSG,
> NCUC and NPOC websites and report back to admissions email boxes.    With
> regard to application improvements, there is no suggestion for over
> engineering, and in fact the opposite. A clear and concise application form
> will expedite application by interested parties, and expedite the admission
> processes at both the NCSG and constituency levels.
>
> 2.      Glad to hear that application improvement is being discussed,
> including a review of appropriate fields for the admission process, and
> what fields may be needed by NCSG, NCUC and NPOC. The key point is that
> fields should serve both the admissions process and the ongoing work of
> NCSG and the constituencies. Proposals for changes here (record forms and
> fields) should be shared with NCSG members to gather member feedback and
> draw on member expertise.
>
> 3.     With regard to maintaining the membership database: Best practices
> for maintaining the membership databases should put membership updating in
> the hands of members. While NCSG and the constituency groups may always
> have to chase laggards with faulty membership data, the process should have
> self-administered membership profiles, to facilitate ease of member access
> and to free up executive time and talents for more important work.
>
> 4.      The aution not adding fields not directly related to applications
> or aimed for specific purpose of course makes sense. Fields can be added
> when parts of the database are imported, for local (NCUC/NPOC) use. One way
> to facilitate that is for member profiles to contain fields for more
> information than just what is on the membership application. This doesn't
> burden the application process, facilitates profile updates, and doesn't
> take up NCSG executive time.
>
>  5.      The question of where to host the membership database and
> services is important and part of the overarching issue referenced above.
> Hosting it, or not hosting it at ICANN, has maintenance implications,
> access implications, and possibly political (optics) implications.
>
> 6.      The issue of database access is not complicated. Below the high
> level editing access, there can be only edit/view/export  access. NCUC and
> NPOC can export some/all of the database and add whatever they need. The
> NCSG Charter makes the NCSG EC and Chair responsible for maintaining and
> updating the membership database, but that does not mean that they should
> use valuable EC and Chair time to manually do what is an administrative
> task. However that is done, membership profiles would help. The current
> process of having members update records by contacting the NCSG chair is
> needlessly burdensome and inefficient.
>
>  7.       With regard to where profiles should reside, that doesn't
> really matter. The prior issue to be resolved is what services should be
> mounted at ICANN, or elsewhere, and how profile access should be managed.
> The profile approach respects the KISS principle, gives more power to the
> stakeholder, and reduces labor demands on the executive and administration.
>
> The overall goal is to do these things efficiently and effective, and free
> up executive and volunteer effort to deal with policy and other matters of
> substance.
>
> Sam L.
>



-- 
Olévié Ayaovi Agbenyo KOUAMI
Responsable projet CERGI-Education (http://www.cergibs.com)
CEO de INTIC4DEV (http://www.intic4dev.org)
SG de ESTETIC  (http://www.estetic.tg)
Membre de ISoc (www.isoc.org <http://www.isoc.org/>) & du FOSSFA (
www.fossfa.net)
ICANN-NPOC Communications Committee Chair (http://www.icann.org/ et
http://www.npoc.org/)
BP : 851 - Tél.: (228) 90 98 86 50 / (228) 98 43 27 72
Skype : olevie1 FB : @olivier.kouami.3 Twitter : #oleviek Lomé - Togo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20140927/d2084e6b/attachment.htm>