Questions to the NCSG Chair candidates

[William Drake]

Thanks Farzi and David for your detailed and thoughtful replies

Bill

> On Aug 18, 2017, at 10:12, David Cake <dave at davecake.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 17 Aug 2017, at 9:29 pm, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi
>> 
>> Since I cannot make the 'meet the candidates' call, I would like pose a couple questions to them here on the list.
>> 
>> You have both served time as the NCUC chair (David for half of 2012, Farzi this past year).  It might be useful to address:
>> 
>> 1.  With regard to internal management/leadership, what have been your main “lessons learned” from chairing NCUC that would be applicable to/helpful in chairing NCSG?  What would you do the in the same way, or differently, for NCSG?
> 
> 	There is an obvious vital difference between NCUC and NCSG when dealing with internal management - in NCUC, the internal differences of opinion, priorities and policy perspective are implicit, but in NCSG they are also explicit in the form of Constituencies. So the most important thing you have to do differently is acknowledge that we have three groups within NCSG (NCUC, NPOC, and those who are members of NCSG but of neither constituency - not to mention some organisations (and individuals that represent them) that may be members of all three formal groups). So in terms of what I would do differently to NCUC chair , I think paying close attention to the formal mechanisms for seeking agreement (like the NCSG Policy Committee and NCSG Executive Committee is vital), and I would endeavour to ensure that the chair acts unilaterally as little as possible, and wherever possible EC consensus is not just respected, but actively sought and nourished as much as possible, even though this can at times be the more difficult option. In NCUC, the EC forms somewhat of a support team for the Chair, but in NCSG, the Chair is a servant of the EC and the membership. 
> 	Though it is also vital to realise that consensus can’t always be achieved on policy issues, that our diversity of background and opinion can be a strength, and where consensus on policy does not exist we should not be trying to force it, and should instead be encouraging our diverse membership to present their differing perspectives. 
> 	One thing I definitely agree with Farzaneh on is the need to improve operating procedures and internal governance of NCSG. Drafting and implementing new procedures, to clarify vital issues such as elections, appointments made outside elections, the role of our newly active finance committee, and so on must be a priority. The last year has shown several times that our rules lack clarity on some important points, and we should work to define and strengthen them. 
> 	 I would strive for a cooperative approach even where consensus is not required - for example, I believe that the different outreach approaches of NCUC and NPOC have the potential to be very complementary if we coordinated them well, and encouraging cooperation in planning outreach events would be to the benefit of all of us. 
> 	And while I think the role of Chair is of course important, building an effective SG is very much a team sport. The Chair of NCSG has a deliberately limited role in the Policy Committee, and I think the NCSG Chair in particular needs to work on enabling our Councillors and other policy work volunteers to do their work, especailly finding ways to make the process of drafting and approving policy easier. I want a very active dialogue with staff on how we can build better tools for policy work (in addition to building on work Tapani has done on tools for membership management etc). 
>  
>> 2.  With regard to our external interfaces with the staff and community, what have been your main “lessons learned” from representing NCUC that would be applicable to/helpful in representing NCSG?  What would you do the in the same way, or differently, for NCSG?
> 
> 	One of my most valuable lesson I learnt in my brief prior term as NCUC Chair is to never underestimate the value of looking entirely outside the ICANN community. The most valuable and effective single action I think NCUC took at the two meetings I chaired in 2012 was outreach to the Article 29 Working Party on Data Protection, which was one of several important steps along the road to dragging ICANN into understanding its responsibilities for European privacy and data protection (a road that we are still on, of course, but one that NCSG can be proud to be a very active part of despite strong organisational resistance we have had to fight at almost every step). 
> 	And as I’ve been representing NCSG on the CSCG (that coordinates civil society representation in internal events such as the IGF and UN events) I’ve seen that NCSG is one of the strongest civiil society networks in the Internet world, but does not seek representation outside the ICANN world as much as it could, and other networks do, even though that would be a very effective form of outreach for us.
> 	So that is lesson one - our external interaction should reach outside ICANN more to maximise our effectiveness. 
> 
> 	That 2012 outreach took place in the context of disputes over the RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement), in which NCSG, despite not being part of the Contracted Parties house, worked very hard to support the cause of the registrars, because even though it was about an agreement between ICANN and the Registrars and we were locked out of negotiations, we saw a number of clear policy issues relevant to our concerns and sought ways to support the registrars. That was one of several issues where cooperating with our colleagues in other SGs (or in other ACs) not just made us effective at the time, but strengthened relationships that have proved their value - those who have been involved in GNSO policy work know that our strong working relationship with the Registrars is now invaluable and has helped our effectiveness particularly on privacy related issues enormously. We’ve also seen through the IANA transition processes, and through many broader ICANN policy issues, that when we are able to recognise and act on issues as a united GNSO, we are able to achieve significant gains. So that is the second lesson I learnt - seek ways to collaborate with other Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups that go beyond the obvious issues of council votes and PDP work, but actively find ways where a civil society perspective can add something to an issue. 
> 
> 	And in addition to the huge amounts of policy work in front of the GNSO right now (such as new gTLDs, RPM review, and next generation RDS working groups), we also have the extra challenge of working out to effectively use all the new empowered community powers and mechanisms, work that we must do in a spirit of active collaboration with all our AC and SO colleagues if we wish them to be used effectively and usefully. 
> 
> 	I think I’m very well equipped with the skills and connections to represent NCSG to the staff and community, far more so than I was in 2012. Especially my GNSO Council experience (including as Vice-Chair) is useful here, but I’ve also been part of a review team, been part of a team that worked closely with GAC members to improve the way the GNSO and GAC work together, and think I have a very strong knowledge of the many working parts that form the complex ICANN community, and the people that make it up - I have both good working relationships, and friendships, with people in every SG and Constituency, every AC and SO. 
> 
> 	In terms of things I would do differently - back in 2012 I think we all saw the role of CEO as very significant for policy setting, and often found ourselves in conflict with the board as we took critical positions on board work. I think NCSG needs to continue to find our way to more productive board interactions rather than focussing on points of disagreement, and driving policy change by discussing our own work and its value rather than just trying to change board/org direction by direct challenge. We have very good relationships with many staff now, especially as we are recognised as a part of the community that does a great deal of policy work. NCSG is stronger now, the whole community has more power relative to the organisation, and we should present ourselves as the strong policy force that we are. 
> 
> 	David
> 
> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> ***********************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
>> william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
>>   www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org/>
>> ***********************************************
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20170818/b33a28f4/attachment.htm>