Proposed modification of NCSG Strategic Review Working Group

Sun Nov 1 11:07:32 EET 2020

Exactly correct, Tomslin. It makes no sense to do a vote or survey before we understand what the options are and what the consequences of each option would be.

I am happy that Bruna has proposed to create two distinct working groups, each of them focused on a specific action item. That will be more effective. As soon as she circulates the new proposal I will volunteer for one of them.

--MM

Hi Thato,

That's indeed the aim of the WG. To consider all views in an exploratory manner, present the findings to membership before we make binary decisions on the issue.

Tomslin

On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 at 09:35, Thato Mfikwe <thatomfikwe at gmail.com<mailto:thatomfikwe at gmail.com>> wrote:
Everyone,

I think we need a webinar to discuss this in detail as a community, not sure if there was any meeting before or not, if we go against the merger or promote it, then all views must be taken into account, majority rules. A membership survey could cut the long story short and being some level of acceptance.

Thato.

On Fri, 30 Oct 2020, 20:49 Bruna Martins dos Santos <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com<mailto:bruna.mrtns at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hello everyone,

Coming back to this, - and withdrawing my previous suggestion of discussing engagement within the strategic review WG - I am convinced these are two different groups.

Therefore, I believe we can continue with a mission oriented Strategic Review Working Group that would (a) review the structure, (b) propose recommendations regarding a new NCSG structure and bylaws amendments and (c) submit the proposal to the broader NCSG community. As I mentioned in my previous email: This is not a definite decision nor a compromise that NCSG is getting rid of its two constituencies, but an effort taken on by some of our volunteers on reviewing our structure in order to see if a merger would represent increasing our effectiveness.

Regardless of that, working on ways of improving membership engagement and performing outreaches is something we could go back to doing.  @farzaneh badii<mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> and others have already provided a very comprehensive list of our engagement issues but in case we have enough volunteers interested in discussing them I would be happy to get together and think of future actions/goals (maybe on a second WG).

I will adapt the WG Charter once again and send it to you asap.

best regards,
Bruna

On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 3:20 PM Bruna Martins dos Santos <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com<mailto:bruna.mrtns at gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear all,

Thank you so much for your emails and input provided to this thread.

I honestly think this working group proposal is a good compromise in discussing two main things - increasing the effectiveness of NCSG and thinking about a new structure for our Stakeholder Group. And, on a suggestion note -  once the WG is working, Its Chair could divide the volunteers into a group that would work on effectiveness proposals related to resources, newcomers onboarding and other areas and a second one that would be responsible for rethinking our structure. The chair and vice-chair could then work on a general report putting together the suggestions from both groups.

Despite some of us stating their disagreement to the strategic review going down the path of a possible merger, I would also like to remind you that when Sam proposed it on our lists it has startled a lot of debates and interest in a renewed NCSG Structure - and thats why I have not ruled out the possibility of a merger on what we are calling the WG Charter.

Finally, as listed on our document, this WG would propose suggestions for a possible merger for the membership to discuss then. This is not a definite decision nor a compromise that NCSG is getting rid of its two constituencies once this group starts its work, but a signal that some of our volunteers will be reviewing our structure in order to see if a merger would represent increasing our effectiveness. Whether we oppose this idea or not, it is relevant for us to get this WG going and opening a discussion with the broader membership in the future - and I dont think some of us merely disliking the idea should be an impediment.

That being sad, although I am not joining this working group, I would be happy to liaise with its members for whatever is needed and also discussing possible paths for improving our effectiveness.

Best Regards,
Bruna Santos

On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 1:53 PM Poncelet Jokkolabs Banjul <pileleji at jokkolabs.co<mailto:pileleji at jokkolabs.co>> wrote:
+1 Farzaneh,

Poncelet O. Ileleji
Jokkolabs Banjul -  Lead
Sait Matty Road, Bakau, Adjacent to Swedish Consulate
KMC, The Gambia
P O Box 4496 Bakau,KMC, The Gambia
Skype: pons_utd
Tel Direct Office: +220 4495115
Tel Mobile/Whatsapp: +220 9912508
www.jokkolabs.net<http://www.jokkolabs.co>
LinkedIn: Jokkolabs Banjul
Facebook: Jokkolabs Banjul
Twitter: @jklBanjul

On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 3:24 PM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>> wrote:
I think the goal of this group is to increase the effectiveness of NCSG as a whole! One way to increase the effectiveness could be a merger.

You can start by doing an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of having stand alone constituencies (you have some of the points in the Google doc). No option should be off the table. Also perhaps we can be more creative and think beyond having constituencies - we don't have to have overly bureaucratic constituencies where everyone is doing their own thing (own EC meetings own bylaws etc) . We can just have various interest groups that contribute to the NCSG without having to have 6 EC members (or leadership members) in each constituency and another 5 in  stakeholder group. On top of that we have 10  people on NCSG PC! do we even have 27 odd active volunteers? Sometimes we don't so people take on two roles!

All solutions should be kept on the table. Maybe merger is not the only solution, but we should not overrule it.

I agree with Milton that discussing "membership engagement" is really a distraction. It should be discussed but somewhere else. We have discussed this issue for so long. For this group, we should accept the fact that we have a limited pool of active membership and how we can make their participation more effective.

Farzaneh

On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 10:35 AM Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>> wrote:
And here (Joan’s message below) is a good example of what I just said in my earlier message. The merger topic and the engagement topic are completely different and appeal to different people.

I would volunteer for a group exploring the merger. I would not volunteer for the “increasing participation” group.
--MM

From: Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org<mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org>>
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2020 11:07 AM
To: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>
Cc: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
Subject: Re: Proposed modification of NCSG Strategic Review Working Group

Hello Everyone,

I would like to join this group to discuss ways to work together for common goals such as education, outreach, mentorship and increasing participation.  If discussing a merger is the main subject, then I am not interested.
Thanks

[Image removed by sender.]<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free. www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>

On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 8:30 AM Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>> wrote:
Based on our discussion today during the ICANN meeting, I would propose to modify the Working Group charter to say this:

The task of the Working Group will be to explore the issues raised by an attempt to merge the two constituencies into an integrated Noncommercial Stakeholder Group. The group will conduct a thorough fact-finding operation to address:
1. Whether or not double constituencies creates duplicate administrative work
2. The impact of a merger on ICANN travel support and other resource availability
3. The charter changes that would have to be made to implement a merger
4. Whether diverse policy perspectives would be reduced by a merger
5. Any other relevant issues related to a merger it uncovers

Dr. Milton L Mueller
Georgia Institute of Technology
School of Public Policy
[IGP_logo_gold block]

--

Joan Kerr, Entrepreneur, Mixed Media Artist, Community Leader

_____________________________________

Chair, Climate Smart Victory Garden Team

Chair, ICANN, Not for Profit Operations Constituency

Chair, IEEE Sustainable Agriculture Working Group

Chair, Science for Peace, Climate Smart Victory Gardens

Member, Public Registry Advisory Council

Advisor, Climate Smart Agriculture Youth Network, (CSAYN) Canada

UN WSIS Award Recipient, for Content & Creativity

Durham Region Recipient, Community Partnership Award

Founder, Foundation for Building Sustainable Communities

www.joankerr.ca<http://www.joankerr.ca/>, www.fbsc.org<http://www.fbsc.org/>

Skype: joankerr_fbsc

1-416-907-0783

[Image removed by sender.]<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free. www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>

--
Bruna Martins dos Santos

Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
@boomartins

--
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/20201101/0954c735/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 372 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20201101/0954c735/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 23085 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20201101/0954c735/attachment.png>