Proposed modification of NCSG Strategic Review Working Group

Fri Oct 30 17:34:38 EET 2020

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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20201030/62fe72e9/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/20201030/62fe72e9/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 21789 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20201030/62fe72e9/attachment.png>