[EC-NCSG] proposal for discussing a review of membership process

[marie-laure Lemineur]

Dear NCSG colleagues,

Some of  us are caught in the middle of reviewing pending applications. I
just finished it and  with Lori, other NCSG members, as well as with
applicants,  we have been sharing ideas about the membership process. I
would like to propose that during the next meeting we put on the agenda,
the possibility of reforming the process as it is right now to improve
 efficiency. I believe that if we all put our minds together we could
improve the current process. The following is meant to be a proposal used
to start discussing the matter  in the EC:

1/*Periodic review*: We would like to propose that instead of waiting for
applications to accumulate themselves, we establish a specific time slot
when we will systematically review the incoming applications. It could be
for example, every last week each month (a monthly review). This is a way
of avoiding having many accumulated applications which is very
time-consuming and we all would like to avoid (I guess).

2/ *Priority order:* we could review the incoming applications (order of
submission of online form) based on a number the system could generate
 when the NCSG form is sent. This way,  we can use this number when we
organise the info in the database and decide the order in which we should
review the applications.Plus at the end of the year it would give us a
clear statistic.

3/*Design of database*: I remember Robin commenting on this aspect and the
fact that ICANN staff should help us with this. Well, we completely support
this and if we reach an agreement on this, why not start asap  asking ICANN
for it and putting pressure so that it happens.

4/*Background check/pre-screening*:   This is the most time-consuming
aspect and what slows us down a lot. It is not fair that as volunteers, we
need bear with such a burden. We we could have another mechanism that could
alleviate this burden. We  could request ICANN staff to do the first round
of background check like a pre-screening, based on online info available
publicly and the NCSG charter of course. I just did it and I can not see
why they could not do it. Than based on the findings,  take the decisions
if the background check is clear or do ourselves dome additional background
check if we feel there is need for it.  We could try this way for a while
and see how we feel about  it.

5/*Access to NCSG application form*:  The NCSG application form is sent
directly to NCSG as it should be, but not all of us have access to it. I
ignore exactly who has and has not. For the sake of transparency, we think
that all NCSG-EC members, should have access to the applications and also
for efficiency, since some members who review the applications do allude to
information that is on the form when others (being able to do this is very
useful since it is our primary source of information), we can not do that
because we  have no idea of what is on the application since we have no
access to it. This is technically very easy to fix.

Well, that would be it for the moment. Again, this proposal is meant to
start putting the issue on the NCSG-EC agenda and take concrete decisions
so that we make a more efficient use of our valuable volunteer time and we
do not let our applicants wait for months in some cases, which is not good
in terms of image and also might discourage some.


Best,

Marie-laure
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20131016/958581be/attachment.html>