NCSG Policy Committee SOP

Wed Oct 2 18:47:07 EEST 2019

Hi Amr,

thanks for the thread.
A quick answer, the expectation is to have the discussion and deliberation
in NCSG list and in NCSG Policy calls for policy topics then it goes to PC
for review and approval at last stage. This is one reason I always ask
drafters of public comments to send to NCSG list for members review and not
just to PC even with the (often) time constraint. There are other areas
covered by PC per NCSG charter like appointments by NCSG to WG or any other
relevant positions which are discussed at PC first and then producing call
for candidates in NCSG list. For letters, there is no necessarily an order
or sequence as they are ad-hoc by nature  and depending how the drafting
was done but a review by members at one stage is required. For the council
deliberations and update, that happens during NCSG Policy calls mostly. I
agree that is not enough and I am sorry that I didn't write down any
council update since February. That could be improved to get more feedback
and input on council deliberations.

For the regular interaction with CEO and with board at ICANN meeting, or
any ad-hoc interaction from ICANN org or CEO or board, those are managed
mostly by NCSG chair and usually questions are sent to NCSG list or raised
at NCSG Policy call to ask for feedback. NCSG PC is being in loop to help
to finalize and support.
unfortunately, one project I was keen to work on and its draft in limbo, is
the NCSG PC operating procedures, I hope to resume the work on that asap to
clarify the processes and writing them down.

Best,

Rafik

Le jeu. 3 oct. 2019 à 03:23, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja> a
écrit :

> Hi,
>
> Other disagreements between you and Farzaneh aside, I find this confusing.
> I’ve been a member of the NCSG since 2010, served the NCSG on the GNSO
> Council for (almost) 2 full terms, and chaired the Policy Committee (PC)
> for a while, although I am not subscribed to the PC mailing list anymore.
>
> What you’re describing as a long standing practice is the exact opposite
> of what I recall it being. It’s also the opposite of what, IMO, it should
> be. This isn’t specific to questions from the NCSG to the ICANN CEO, which
> I’m not sure even requires NCSG PC oversight of any kind, but more broadly
> any issues of substance that the NCSG PC will need to eventually consider
> on behalf of the Stakeholder Group.
>
> My recollection is that initial consultations on any substantive issues
> that may eventually find their way to the NCSG PC always took place on this
> mailing list first. Only after discussion by the broader membership took
> place, did the PC begin consideration of its position and duties as
> detailed in the NCSG Charter.
>
> That doesn’t preclude the possibility of whoever is bringing a topic to
> the membership’s attention (doesn’t necessarily have to be the NCSG Chair)
> writing up a preliminary position or set of thoughts, or even consult with
> others before doing so. However, the idea of topics being formally
> discussed by the PC before consulting the broader membership is not
> something I find comforting, or even appropriate. How is the PC supposed to
> know what the NCSG’s position is if it doesn’t consult with its members
> first?
>
> Speaking for myself, I’d appreciate a clarification from the Policy
> Committee on how it is currently approaching the variety of issues that it
> tackles, and the opportunity to amend its approach or SOP, should it be
> apparent that it is indeed how you describe.
>
> I’ve moved this request to a separate thread, as it is not specific to the
> previous topic of the one-on-one call with the ICANN CEO.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Oct 2, 2019, at 6:16 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>
> Forgive me for asking this.
>
> But why, Farzaneh, did you take this conversation from the Policy
> Committee list to the main NCSG-Discuss list?
>
> It is not that the main discussion list should not be consulted, of course
> there is nothing wrong with that.
>
> However the long standing practice is that it is the NCSG Chair who would
> take such a conversation to the list after formulating a first draft of
> questions with the Policy Committee.
>
> And that is exactly what Stephanie was doing.
>
> So I am not sure why you would try to undermine Stephanie like this. I
> consider it very disrespectful.
>
> Ayden
>
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Tuesday, 1 October 2019 21:28, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at GMAIL.COM>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Stephanie
>
> Thanks a lot for putting this together. I cc'd the list.
>
> The first question is an actual comment. So he has invited some NCSG
> members to dinner? Or is this the usual dinner invitation? And who would
> you like to take with you to this dinner if you could take other members?
>
> The second question, you are asking for a research librarian for the
> community. This should have been in form of additional budget request and I
> don't think anything can be done about it now. It's simply too late and the
> CEO doesn't have a pot of money to give to noncommercials to have a
> research librarian.  This again is not a question, it's an ask. I don't
> think there would be any problem with if we suggest this as an ABR and
> promote it and get support from other community groups (though I am dubious
> about its effectiveness, since if we don't have many people active, why
> would they want to use a research libraria?)
>
> The third question is again another ask for a budget, and this time its
> reallocation.I see that in this request, you mention that CSG was
> disinterested in meeting with "us". And then there was a concession? Would
> be glad to know more about this if you could share the details. You are
> asking for another day to be added to Cancun for NCSG to meet internally. I
> don't have an issue with that but I am wondering if the CEO will even
> entertain your request if you don't say the objectives of this one day
> meeting with NCSG.
>
> I'd like to ask the CEO, and we have been asking this before, why some
> important call for comments from the community are published on blogs and
> not on public comment page? Can that be fixed?
>
> Are you going to discuss his blog about ICANN's carbon foot print?
>
> Could you also please raise the point that we are unclear about the nature
> of evolving ICANN's MSM process? Brian Cute (if I am not mistaken) was
> appointed by the Board or the CEO, and this whole initiative was created in
> a top-down manner I believe. How do they want to actually evolve the MSM
> when the process of evolving it is a top down process?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Farzaneh
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 11:48 AM Stephanie Perrin <
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
>> I have my one on 14 with Goran tomorrow.  I am late in sending these
>> questions out for approcal, they were due yesterday.  I have discussed with
>> Bruna, that is it.  Let me know if you have any reactions, I am sending
>> very shortly.
>>
>> cheers Steph
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20191002/f5e580be/attachment.htm>