Minutes from the Leadership Call on the merger/strategic review

[Sam Lanfranco]

Raymond, et. al.,
I hope that the dialogue going forward does not focus on a binary Yes/No
re: considering a merger.
I triggered the discussion as a way to get each part of the troika, and
each and every member, to give thought to how to increase the effectiveness
and efficiency of our joint mission within ICANN's mission and its work
agenda. My three core concerns were, and are, a terrible shortage of
volunteers to participate in the main work of ICANN, the PDP working
groups, the draft review processes, and such; a considerable lack of
success, both on our own and in collaboration with ICANN's efforts, to grow
our engaged stakeholder base (by which I mean both more stakeholder
members, and more engagement in processes by members; and lastly, the
question: is the current structure too top heavy with administrative
positions?; and what are the consequences of that for working group
engagement, and for entitlements to travel for work at face-to-face ICANN
meetings. 
As a personal observations, I view face-to-face meetings, across
stakeholder groups and with ICANN staff and the Board, for fine tuning and
advancing the online work of ICANN. I also view them as forward looking and
as an opportunity to explore issues, for collaboration around issues of
ICANN mutual interest. But, have felt that way too much of the time and
engagement by much of the troika at such meetings has been spent dealing
with troika member "in house" issues, or using it as almost a public
relations opportunity. "In house" issues should be dealt with elsewhere,
especially when it comes to the perennial issue of growing membership. 
Given the extreme high cost of ICANN literal meetings, both in terms of
ICANN financial resources and member time commitments, we need a discussion
on how to do better there. 
I would add other issues such as how to build regional representation, how
to promote (and reward?) regional engagement, and innovative (low cost)
online mentoring.
In my view, the purpose of the discussion is to do better, not to line up
sides on a binary merger poll or vote. 
Sam Lanfranco

---- Original Message ----
From: Raymond Mamattah 
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Sent: Sat, Aug 8, 2020, 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: Minutes from the Leadership Call on the merger/strategic
review

Hello Bruna and all,
Is it possible to do a poll to see those who are in favor or against the
motion of the merger before we even continue with forming the WG?
Out of the lots on the mailing list only few have contributed to the
discussion so far.
I believe it's just right to act in the best interest of the members, hence
a simple poll for or against the motion I believe will suffice.

RegardsRaymond MamattahAccra-Ghana
On Sat, Aug 8, 2020, 9:23 PM Bruna Martins dos Santos  wrote:
And, if I may add, the selected part of the meeting minutes are just a
reflection of the discussions hosted by a very restricted group of people.
As Raphael mentioned, we are also kicking off the same discussions that
happened on the list and this specific perception is not really relevant if
our members decide that we should go for the merger. 
But, imho, before we decide on going forward with the proposal having a
working group or any assessment that would look into the hardships,
resources, leadership position and so on would be much needed. 
Best, 
Bruna Santos 
NCUC Chair 
On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 3:27 PM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix  wrote:

Hi all,

Answer below was mistakenly sent to Raymond only - so here it is for
everyone else:
**
Hi Raymond,

In the present case, Bruna and I wrote them, and they were reviewed by all
the ECs' members before being put on list. I believe that having such a
review would prevent biased reporting from slipping in. But I agree it
would be good practice to indicate who was in charge of putting minutes
together, and that is duly noted for the next calls.

As for your specific question, the statement means what it means - that
there was no agreement. As I mentioned in the first email, the only thing
there was agreement on, is on the necessity to involve the wider membership
and hold another call. Hopefully we'll move past that and get agreement on
the substance soon, but that was not the goal of the call; rather we just
wanted to know (or clarify, or confirm) where we all stood and how we could
move this forward in a unified way across the leadership. 

Have a nice day,

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 5:31 AM Raymond Mamattah  wrote:

Hello Raphael and all,

The minutes of the meeting sounds ok to me, however, the only part that is
a bit confusing is the statement that says:
There was no agreement that shutting down the two constituencies has to be
the end goal, but there was also no agreement that it should be excluded as
a potential solution outright either. 

If the above statement stands correct, then what exactly was agreed on?  It
will also interest us to know who wrote the minutes.  In my personal view,
it will be good to get someone who has a neutral view and has not taken any
stance on the issue to take the minutes.
Regards,
Raymond Mamattah
Accra, Ghana.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 11:32 PM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix  wrote:
Dear all,
Please find below the minutes from the NCSG-wide leadership call held on
August 5th. 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fb72QJnzFDrcPAS-FKONARxPjVwK70MZ5fK7VHOS3ng/edit?usp=sharing
(https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fb72QJnzFDrcPAS-FKONARxPjVwK70MZ5fK7VHOS3ng/edit?usp=sharing)
This call was meant as an initial step only. More specifically, the purpose
was for the members of the three ECs of the NCSG (NCSG itself, NCUC and
NPOC) to coordinate themselves on the next steps regarding the ongoing
discussions on the "merger" (or strategic review, as discussed during the
call).
As you will see, the only decision taken has been to open the next call to
all NCSG members who are interested in investing time and effort into the
review project. The whole leadership was in agreement on the importance to
involve the broader membership in that initiative, given the traction it
has gathered on the list.
Moreover, we used the opportunity of having the EC leadership gathered in a
single zoom room to discuss a few other matters. 
Do note that there is no formal working group or any other structure yet -
although this may well happen some time soon. And if/when it does, you can
rest assured that there will be a formal and list-wide call along with all
other incident formalities.
While we do not have a date for our next call yet, it will take place next
week and the time/zoom room will be posted on the list. 
All calls will also be reported on-list through minutes of the same kind as
those above.
Finally, the existence of such calls are not meant to pre-empt on-list
discussion. I would like to thank all of those who have taken part so far,
and invite everyone to continue to engage in their best multistakeholder
spirit ;)
Have a nice day, 
-- 
Bruna Martins dos Santos 
Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos

@boomartins
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20200809/89de3030/attachment.htm>