Proposed modification of NCSG Strategic Review Working Group
Stephanie E Perrin
stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA
Sat Oct 31 08:37:18 EET 2020
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
> <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/20201031/42801c37/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/20201031/42801c37/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/20201031/42801c37/attachment.png>
More information about the Ncsg-discuss
mailing list