Proposed modification of NCSG Strategic Review Working Group

Mon Nov 2 15:55:57 EET 2020

Hey all,

Replying directly to @Thato Mfikwe <thatomfikwe at gmail.com>: so far we have
discussed this topic over the course of 4 meetings - a first one hosted
with the SG leadership
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fb72QJnzFDrcPAS-FKONARxPjVwK70MZ5fK7VHOS3ng/edit>,
another one with the membership
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EIgb6Lb7ZuMm5pMEPPx9gztcVRVbTWP-FyQcxpQAvQc/edit>
and then hosted discussions on both the NCUC and NCSG open meeting back at
ICANN69.

Since there has not been any strong opposition to the Structure Review WG
in any of such opportunities, I am assuming a survey will not be needed -
and anyone concerned about this initiative should feel comfortable for
expressing their concerns on this list.

I do agree that GNSO review is another relevant point to bring up in this
context and see this group as us trying to get ahead and assessing our
structure before. Having a comprehensive report about NCSG before any GNSO
groups puts us under any scrutiny might be an interesting strategy - but
these are just my personal thoughts.

Best,
B.

On Sun, Nov 1, 2020 at 1:10 PM Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:

> It good that Stephanie reminds us of the GNSO review. The Working Group on
> structural reform should be aware of that, and the options and
> recommendations it discusses should take the need to prepare for this GNSO
> review into consideration.
>
>
>
> --MM
>
>
>
> *From:* NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> *On Behalf Of *Stephanie
> E Perrin
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 31, 2020 9:37 AM
> *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> *Subject:* Re: Proposed modification of NCSG Strategic Review Working
> Group
>
>
>
> Indeed, nothing stops the list here from discussing the issues.  The goal
> of the small team is to pull together the issues and challenges we are
> facing, as well as our strengths, and review our structures.  Sam started
> this discussion very well, and restated the issue a couple of days ago.
>
> I prefer to call this thing a strategic review, partly because we need
> one, and we need to figure ourselves out prior to the upcoming GNSO
> review.  What are we contributing to ICANN, more specifically the GNSO
> Council and its work?  How does our structure and our use of funds and
> ICANN staffing resources contribute to the broader goals, and our own
> specific objectives?  How well are we representing those we claim to
> represent?
>
> We have a problem with burnout.  We continue to lose people who have
> worked long and hard for us, participating actively on working groups and
> pdps, writing comments, and contributing to the organization of which we
> are apart, the GNSO.  As Bruna has stated below, we HAVE to continue to
> address the issues of recruitment and outreach.  Understanding our
> priorities and making sure resources are properly allocated to support the
> work is just necessary maintenance to make sure we remain a healthy
> contributor to the ICANN MS organization.  As Farzi recently pointed out,
> this is kind of a niche area of the Internet and it is not for everybody.
> But for those who are interested and who can bring energy and expertise, it
> should be rewarding and (gasp) fun.
>
> For those interested in the topic of GNSO review, this page here which
> calls for bids for the last one, contains a plain language summary.
> https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/other/review/2014.  Navigating
> the ICANN website remains challenging despite recent improvements, but it
> is worth understanding that we are part of a structure that undertakes
> periodic reviews to ensure we are maintaining constant improvement.  This
> page will, with patience, bring you to the results of the 2014 review and
> the previous 2008 review.  This work is important to us.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Stephanie Perrin
>
> On 2020-10-31 6:18 a.m., Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote:
>
> *EXTERNAL EMAIL: ** Treat content with extra caution. *
>
> 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> 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>
> 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 <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> 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> 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>
> 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>
> 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>
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 29, 2020 11:07 AM
> *To:* Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
> *Cc:* 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: 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>
> 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
>
> [image: 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, www.fbsc.org
>
> Skype: joankerr_fbsc
>
> 1-416-907-0783
>
>
>
> [image: 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
>
>

-- 
*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/20201102/3f2d1e9e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 372 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20201102/3f2d1e9e/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 23083 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20201102/3f2d1e9e/attachment.png>