From rafik.dammak  Mon Sep  2 14:24:45 2013
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 20:24:45 +0900
Subject: [EC-NCSG] NCSG Membership Applications and EC Evaluation
	Procedures
In-Reply-To: <C8858362-2206-411D-92FC-1BA33D5172C2@ipjustice.org>
References: <C8858362-2206-411D-92FC-1BA33D5172C2@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThm+ci6jyhAKqAOOWkruiHTkg+oY2SMax-R2uj1huFyTeg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Robin,

sorry for delay, I updated the "pending applications" file, we have 29
applications to cover , for this week hopefully and I think that is doable.
please check this file for review
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dENsT21PLTFmeW9qZ2pLLWowc3RTbmc&usp=sharing
.
I will be glad to assist our new EC members regarding the review process
In other hand, for a better applications solution, I will be glad to
discuss with ICANN staff.

Best,

Rafik


2013/8/28 Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>

> Dear All:
>
> As you all know, we need an integrated membership database solution to
> manage the NCSG membership applications, membership rosters, etc. and ICANN
> hasn't yet provided a solution (although it said it was working on one for
> all of ICANN, not just NCSG).  So in the meantime, we are using these
> Google docs spreadsheets to manage the membership data, even though it is
> rather cumbersome to navigate and far from the best solution.
>
> Reminder that the data for incoming NCSG Membership applications is stored
> in a spreadsheet and available to EC members here:
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ane1uzL43HhedDFhOWZOTEVhMzZUYUszVFhpX1JEU1E&usp=sharing
>
> The spreadsheet that keeps track of the immediately pending applications,
> including how each NCSG member votes on a given application is here:
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dENsT21PLTFmeW9qZ2pLLWowc3RTbmc&usp=sharing
>
> I believe Rafik volunteered to update the immediately above PENDING
> applications link to reflect the new applications that have come in for
> evaluation in the last few weeks and that we need to evaluate now.
>
> Each NCSG EC member should then evaluate the application against NCSG's
> membership criteria and noncommercial mission and then we vote on the
> application's approval in the above link.  Sometimes there are questions or
> info is not complete so follow-ups are needed with applicants.
>
> We can type our vote or comment directly into the PENDING spreadsheet so
> the discussion is all in one place and publicly available (and applicants
> can keep track of their application by looking at this link).  We evaluate
> the data supplied by the applicant in the spreadsheet at 1st link (private)
> above, but we each vote in the spreadsheet 2nd link (public).   Again, the
> need for an integrated membership database.....  Thanks very much.
>
> Please let me know if you have any questions on this.
>
> Best,
> Robin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20130902/29d96ab4/attachment.html>


From mllemineur  Tue Sep  3 02:27:27 2013
From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 17:27:27 -0600
Subject: [EC-NCSG] NCSG Membership Applications and EC Evaluation
	Procedures
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThm+ci6jyhAKqAOOWkruiHTkg+oY2SMax-R2uj1huFyTeg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C8858362-2206-411D-92FC-1BA33D5172C2@ipjustice.org>
	<CAH5sThm+ci6jyhAKqAOOWkruiHTkg+oY2SMax-R2uj1huFyTeg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD3sNqGng-eDGBVe2Y=74MLGK=CtF_X_D9pbvj-OiwDtwNKBpQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Rafik,

Thanks. I will have time to do this starting Wednesday, Thurday and Friday.
Could you please explain to me if the colors have a particular meaning. I
have not been able to figure it out... sorry :)

Merci!

Marie-laure


On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 5:24 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Robin,
>
> sorry for delay, I updated the "pending applications" file, we have 29
> applications to cover , for this week hopefully and I think that is doable.
> please check this file for review
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dENsT21PLTFmeW9qZ2pLLWowc3RTbmc&usp=sharing
> .
> I will be glad to assist our new EC members regarding the review process
> In other hand, for a better applications solution, I will be glad to
> discuss with ICANN staff.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
> 2013/8/28 Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>
>> Dear All:
>>
>> As you all know, we need an integrated membership database solution to
>> manage the NCSG membership applications, membership rosters, etc. and ICANN
>> hasn't yet provided a solution (although it said it was working on one for
>> all of ICANN, not just NCSG).  So in the meantime, we are using these
>> Google docs spreadsheets to manage the membership data, even though it is
>> rather cumbersome to navigate and far from the best solution.
>>
>> Reminder that the data for incoming NCSG Membership applications is
>> stored in a spreadsheet and available to EC members here:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ane1uzL43HhedDFhOWZOTEVhMzZUYUszVFhpX1JEU1E&usp=sharing
>>
>> The spreadsheet that keeps track of the immediately pending applications,
>> including how each NCSG member votes on a given application is here:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dENsT21PLTFmeW9qZ2pLLWowc3RTbmc&usp=sharing
>>
>> I believe Rafik volunteered to update the immediately above PENDING
>> applications link to reflect the new applications that have come in for
>> evaluation in the last few weeks and that we need to evaluate now.
>>
>> Each NCSG EC member should then evaluate the application against NCSG's
>> membership criteria and noncommercial mission and then we vote on the
>> application's approval in the above link.  Sometimes there are questions or
>> info is not complete so follow-ups are needed with applicants.
>>
>> We can type our vote or comment directly into the PENDING spreadsheet so
>> the discussion is all in one place and publicly available (and applicants
>> can keep track of their application by looking at this link).  We evaluate
>> the data supplied by the applicant in the spreadsheet at 1st link (private)
>> above, but we each vote in the spreadsheet 2nd link (public).   Again, the
>> need for an integrated membership database.....  Thanks very much.
>>
>> Please let me know if you have any questions on this.
>>
>> Best,
>> Robin
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20130902/55bd7b99/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Sep  3 03:33:02 2013
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 09:33:02 +0900
Subject: [EC-NCSG] NCSG Membership Applications and EC Evaluation
	Procedures
In-Reply-To: <CAD3sNqGng-eDGBVe2Y=74MLGK=CtF_X_D9pbvj-OiwDtwNKBpQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C8858362-2206-411D-92FC-1BA33D5172C2@ipjustice.org>
	<CAH5sThm+ci6jyhAKqAOOWkruiHTkg+oY2SMax-R2uj1huFyTeg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqGng-eDGBVe2Y=74MLGK=CtF_X_D9pbvj-OiwDtwNKBpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmMe4RH351Otmc415NGnXJgMFR9LaSDaWPntMo2ND4Eyg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Marie-Laure,

no problem,
please review the application from row #2 to row # 30, they are the latest
applications we should cover.
for colors, they are used for old application we checked previously, maybe
Robin can explain better about their meaning.

best,

Rafik


2013/9/3 marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>

> Dear Rafik,
>
> Thanks. I will have time to do this starting Wednesday, Thurday and
> Friday. Could you please explain to me if the colors have a particular
> meaning. I have not been able to figure it out... sorry :)
>
> Merci!
>
> Marie-laure
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 5:24 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi Robin,
>>
>> sorry for delay, I updated the "pending applications" file, we have 29
>> applications to cover , for this week hopefully and I think that is doable.
>> please check this file for review
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dENsT21PLTFmeW9qZ2pLLWowc3RTbmc&usp=sharing
>> .
>> I will be glad to assist our new EC members regarding the review process
>> In other hand, for a better applications solution, I will be glad to
>> discuss with ICANN staff.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>> 2013/8/28 Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>>
>>> Dear All:
>>>
>>> As you all know, we need an integrated membership database solution to
>>> manage the NCSG membership applications, membership rosters, etc. and ICANN
>>> hasn't yet provided a solution (although it said it was working on one for
>>> all of ICANN, not just NCSG).  So in the meantime, we are using these
>>> Google docs spreadsheets to manage the membership data, even though it is
>>> rather cumbersome to navigate and far from the best solution.
>>>
>>> Reminder that the data for incoming NCSG Membership applications is
>>> stored in a spreadsheet and available to EC members here:
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ane1uzL43HhedDFhOWZOTEVhMzZUYUszVFhpX1JEU1E&usp=sharing
>>>
>>> The spreadsheet that keeps track of the immediately pending
>>> applications, including how each NCSG member votes on a given application
>>> is here:
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dENsT21PLTFmeW9qZ2pLLWowc3RTbmc&usp=sharing
>>>
>>> I believe Rafik volunteered to update the immediately above PENDING
>>> applications link to reflect the new applications that have come in for
>>> evaluation in the last few weeks and that we need to evaluate now.
>>>
>>> Each NCSG EC member should then evaluate the application against NCSG's
>>> membership criteria and noncommercial mission and then we vote on the
>>> application's approval in the above link.  Sometimes there are questions or
>>> info is not complete so follow-ups are needed with applicants.
>>>
>>> We can type our vote or comment directly into the PENDING spreadsheet so
>>> the discussion is all in one place and publicly available (and applicants
>>> can keep track of their application by looking at this link).  We evaluate
>>> the data supplied by the applicant in the spreadsheet at 1st link (private)
>>> above, but we each vote in the spreadsheet 2nd link (public).   Again, the
>>> need for an integrated membership database.....  Thanks very much.
>>>
>>> Please let me know if you have any questions on this.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Robin
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20130903/a693e782/attachment.html>


From mllemineur  Tue Sep 10 21:23:41 2013
From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 12:23:41 -0600
Subject: [EC-NCSG] NCSG Membership Applications and EC Evaluation
	Procedures
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmMe4RH351Otmc415NGnXJgMFR9LaSDaWPntMo2ND4Eyg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C8858362-2206-411D-92FC-1BA33D5172C2@ipjustice.org>
	<CAH5sThm+ci6jyhAKqAOOWkruiHTkg+oY2SMax-R2uj1huFyTeg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqGng-eDGBVe2Y=74MLGK=CtF_X_D9pbvj-OiwDtwNKBpQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThmMe4RH351Otmc415NGnXJgMFR9LaSDaWPntMo2ND4Eyg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD3sNqEO4UZ+ejwtCxs123Woxv+Nh+rg2aPOyTEW=m12jaG4eA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Rafik, Robin, Lori and al.,

Over these last days I  have started to review the list of pending
applications that Rafik kindly uploaded. Rafik answering a question I asked
him told me I should review row 1 to 32 ie review 31 applications. I
started doing it but realized the following:

-the current list uploaded gathers pending applications and already
approved applications;
- Since Rafik had already worked on the list. I self-volunteered to also
contribute and not bother Rafik anymore. This is why I proceeded, in the
document that you will find attached,  to separate what is labelled on the
original list sent by Rafik as "pending" and what is labelled as "approved
applications". They are three taps in the same Excel doc;
-As a result of this, you will realize that instead of having 117 rows with
mixed application status, now we have  a  list of strictly pending
applications from row 1 to row 43 on one list which means that there are
only 42 pending applications;
-the 61 approved applications have been copied and pasted in the separate
list;
-Among those 42 applications I am aware of some who have been in the queue
for quite some time now;

 I am proposing that instead of reviewing 31 applications we might as well
review the 42 ie the whole batch. It does not really make sense (in my
humble opinion)  to left out 11 applications and it does not make a huge
difference either. If we do this round, we might as well want to complete
it once for all.

Best regards,

Marie-laure

On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Marie-Laure,
>
> no problem,
> please review the application from row #2 to row # 30, they are the latest
> applications we should cover.
> for colors, they are used for old application we checked previously, maybe
> Robin can explain better about their meaning.
>
> best,
>
>  Rafik
>
>
> 2013/9/3 marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>
>
>> Dear Rafik,
>>
>> Thanks. I will have time to do this starting Wednesday, Thurday and
>> Friday. Could you please explain to me if the colors have a particular
>> meaning. I have not been able to figure it out... sorry :)
>>
>> Merci!
>>
>> Marie-laure
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 5:24 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Robin,
>>>
>>> sorry for delay, I updated the "pending applications" file, we have 29
>>> applications to cover , for this week hopefully and I think that is doable.
>>> please check this file for review
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dENsT21PLTFmeW9qZ2pLLWowc3RTbmc&usp=sharing
>>> .
>>> I will be glad to assist our new EC members regarding the review process
>>> In other hand, for a better applications solution, I will be glad to
>>> discuss with ICANN staff.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>>  Rafik
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/8/28 Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>>>
>>>> Dear All:
>>>>
>>>> As you all know, we need an integrated membership database solution to
>>>> manage the NCSG membership applications, membership rosters, etc. and ICANN
>>>> hasn't yet provided a solution (although it said it was working on one for
>>>> all of ICANN, not just NCSG).  So in the meantime, we are using these
>>>> Google docs spreadsheets to manage the membership data, even though it is
>>>> rather cumbersome to navigate and far from the best solution.
>>>>
>>>> Reminder that the data for incoming NCSG Membership applications is
>>>> stored in a spreadsheet and available to EC members here:
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ane1uzL43HhedDFhOWZOTEVhMzZUYUszVFhpX1JEU1E&usp=sharing
>>>>
>>>> The spreadsheet that keeps track of the immediately pending
>>>> applications, including how each NCSG member votes on a given application
>>>> is here:
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dENsT21PLTFmeW9qZ2pLLWowc3RTbmc&usp=sharing
>>>>
>>>> I believe Rafik volunteered to update the immediately above PENDING
>>>> applications link to reflect the new applications that have come in for
>>>> evaluation in the last few weeks and that we need to evaluate now.
>>>>
>>>> Each NCSG EC member should then evaluate the application against NCSG's
>>>> membership criteria and noncommercial mission and then we vote on the
>>>> application's approval in the above link.  Sometimes there are questions or
>>>> info is not complete so follow-ups are needed with applicants.
>>>>
>>>> We can type our vote or comment directly into the PENDING spreadsheet
>>>> so the discussion is all in one place and publicly available (and
>>>> applicants can keep track of their application by looking at this link).
>>>>  We evaluate the data supplied by the applicant in the spreadsheet at 1st
>>>> link (private) above, but we each vote in the spreadsheet 2nd link
>>>> (public).   Again, the need for an integrated membership database.....
>>>>  Thanks very much.
>>>>
>>>> Please let me know if you have any questions on this.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Robin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20130910/869d3ae8/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: List of pending aplications-original version RD-approved  aplic edited by mll 6 sep. 2103.xls
Type: application/vnd.ms-excel
Size: 79360 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20130910/869d3ae8/attachment-0001.xls>


From lori.schulman  Tue Sep 10 22:26:26 2013
From: lori.schulman (Lori Schulman)
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 19:26:26 +0000
Subject: [EC-NCSG] NCSG Membership Applications and EC
	Evaluation	Procedures
In-Reply-To: <CAD3sNqEO4UZ+ejwtCxs123Woxv+Nh+rg2aPOyTEW=m12jaG4eA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C8858362-2206-411D-92FC-1BA33D5172C2@ipjustice.org>
	<CAH5sThm+ci6jyhAKqAOOWkruiHTkg+oY2SMax-R2uj1huFyTeg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqGng-eDGBVe2Y=74MLGK=CtF_X_D9pbvj-OiwDtwNKBpQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThmMe4RH351Otmc415NGnXJgMFR9LaSDaWPntMo2ND4Eyg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqEO4UZ+ejwtCxs123Woxv+Nh+rg2aPOyTEW=m12jaG4eA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <07F06E6EBD995844BDC9E2F0714E727A52C36492@EX2K10MAILBOX2.ascd.org>

That makes a lot of sense to me.   Is there a check sheet for criteria.  How does the EC typically vet these names?  How much independent research is required?


Lori S. Schulman * General Counsel
P 703-575-5678 * Lori.Schulman at ascd.org<mailto:Lori.Schulman at ascd.org>
[Description: cid:image001.png at 01CC81E2.512C46F0]



From: ec-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:ec-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of marie-laure Lemineur
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 2:24 PM
To: Rafik Dammak
Cc: ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Subject: Re: [EC-NCSG] NCSG Membership Applications and EC Evaluation Procedures

Dear Rafik, Robin, Lori and al.,

Over these last days I  have started to review the list of pending applications that Rafik kindly uploaded. Rafik answering a question I asked him told me I should review row 1 to 32 ie review 31 applications. I started doing it but realized the following:

-the current list uploaded gathers pending applications and already approved applications;
- Since Rafik had already worked on the list. I self-volunteered to also contribute and not bother Rafik anymore. This is why I proceeded, in the document that you will find attached,  to separate what is labelled on the original list sent by Rafik as "pending" and what is labelled as "approved applications". They are three taps in the same Excel doc;
-As a result of this, you will realize that instead of having 117 rows with mixed application status, now we have  a  list of strictly pending applications from row 1 to row 43 on one list which means that there are only 42 pending applications;
-the 61 approved applications have been copied and pasted in the separate list;
-Among those 42 applications I am aware of some who have been in the queue for quite some time now;

 I am proposing that instead of reviewing 31 applications we might as well review the 42 ie the whole batch. It does not really make sense (in my humble opinion)  to left out 11 applications and it does not make a huge difference either. If we do this round, we might as well want to complete it once for all.

Best regards,

Marie-laure
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Marie-Laure,

no problem,
please review the application from row #2 to row # 30, they are the latest applications we should cover.
for colors, they are used for old application we checked previously, maybe Robin can explain better about their meaning.

best,

Rafik

2013/9/3 marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com<mailto:mllemineur at gmail.com>>
Dear Rafik,

Thanks. I will have time to do this starting Wednesday, Thurday and Friday. Could you please explain to me if the colors have a particular meaning. I have not been able to figure it out... sorry :)

Merci!

Marie-laure

On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 5:24 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Robin,

sorry for delay, I updated the "pending applications" file, we have 29 applications to cover , for this week hopefully and I think that is doable.
please check this file for review https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dENsT21PLTFmeW9qZ2pLLWowc3RTbmc&usp=sharing.
I will be glad to assist our new EC members regarding the review process
In other hand, for a better applications solution, I will be glad to discuss with ICANN staff.

Best,

Rafik

2013/8/28 Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
Dear All:

As you all know, we need an integrated membership database solution to manage the NCSG membership applications, membership rosters, etc. and ICANN hasn't yet provided a solution (although it said it was working on one for all of ICANN, not just NCSG).  So in the meantime, we are using these Google docs spreadsheets to manage the membership data, even though it is rather cumbersome to navigate and far from the best solution.

Reminder that the data for incoming NCSG Membership applications is stored in a spreadsheet and available to EC members here:
  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ane1uzL43HhedDFhOWZOTEVhMzZUYUszVFhpX1JEU1E&usp=sharing

The spreadsheet that keeps track of the immediately pending applications, including how each NCSG member votes on a given application is here:
  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dENsT21PLTFmeW9qZ2pLLWowc3RTbmc&usp=sharing

I believe Rafik volunteered to update the immediately above PENDING applications link to reflect the new applications that have come in for evaluation in the last few weeks and that we need to evaluate now.

Each NCSG EC member should then evaluate the application against NCSG's membership criteria and noncommercial mission and then we vote on the application's approval in the above link.  Sometimes there are questions or info is not complete so follow-ups are needed with applicants.

We can type our vote or comment directly into the PENDING spreadsheet so the discussion is all in one place and publicly available (and applicants can keep track of their application by looking at this link).  We evaluate the data supplied by the applicant in the spreadsheet at 1st link (private) above, but we each vote in the spreadsheet 2nd link (public).   Again, the need for an integrated membership database.....  Thanks very much.

Please let me know if you have any questions on this.

Best,
Robin


_______________________________________________
EC-NCSG mailing list
EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg


_______________________________________________
EC-NCSG mailing list
EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg






"Join us at the ASCD Conference on Educational Leadership, November 1-3, 2013, at The Cosmopolitan(tm) in fabulous Las Vegas, Nev. Learn and network with the highest-performing education leaders and best-selling authors of proven leadership resources. Register now at www.ascd.org/CEL<http://www.ascd.org/CEL>."



This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of

the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is

confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or

have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy,
distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the
sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any

attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20130910/c491f3eb/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2196 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20130910/c491f3eb/attachment.jpg>


From director-general  Wed Sep 11 12:51:20 2013
From: director-general (Dorothy K. Gordon)
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 09:51:20 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [EC-NCSG] NCSG Membership Applications and EC Evaluation
 Procedures
In-Reply-To: <CAD3sNqEO4UZ+ejwtCxs123Woxv+Nh+rg2aPOyTEW=m12jaG4eA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <28095061.25531378893080797.JavaMail.root@mail.aiti-kace.com.gh>

I have noticed that Satish Babu appears twice as number 16 and number 33 in the list of the pending applications are these different people? Thanks in advance for the clarification.

best regards

Dorothy K. Gordon
Director-General
Ghana-India Kofi Annan Centre of Excellence in ICT
Mobile: 233 265005712
Direct Line: 233 302 683579
Website: www.aiti-kace.com.gh
Encrypt Everything - https://gpgtools.org https://silentcircle.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "marie-laure Lemineur" <mllemineur at gmail.com>
To: "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Cc: ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Sent: Tuesday, 10 September, 2013 6:23:41 PM GMT +00:00 Casablanca / Monrovia
Subject: Re: [EC-NCSG] NCSG Membership Applications and EC Evaluation Procedures



Dear Rafik, Robin, Lori and al., 

Over these last days I have started to review the list of pending applications that Rafik kindly uploaded. Rafik answering a question I asked him told me I should review row 1 to 32 ie review 31 applications. I started doing it but realized the following: 

-the current list uploaded gathers pending applications and already approved applications; 
- Since Rafik had already worked on the list. I self-volunteered to also contribute and not bother Rafik anymore. This is why I proceeded, in the document that you will find attached, to separate what is labelled on the original list sent by Rafik as "pending" and what is labelled as "approved applications". They are three taps in the same Excel doc; 
-As a result of this, you will realize that instead of having 117 rows with mixed application status, now we have a list of strictly pending applications from row 1 to row 43 on one list which means that there are only 42 pending applications; 
-the 61 approved applications have been copied and pasted in the separate list; 
-Among those 42 applications I am aware of some who have been in the queue for quite some time now; 

I am proposing that instead of reviewing 31 applications we might as well review the 42 ie the whole batch. It does not really make sense (in my humble opinion) to left out 11 applications and it does not make a huge difference either. If we do this round, we might as well want to complete it once for all. 

Best regards, 

Marie-laure 


On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Rafik Dammak < rafik.dammak at gmail.com > wrote: 



Hi Marie-Laure, 


no problem, 
please review the application from row #2 to row # 30, they are the latest applications we should cover. 
for colors, they are used for old application we checked previously, maybe Robin can explain better about their meaning. 


best, 




Rafik 




2013/9/3 marie-laure Lemineur < mllemineur at gmail.com > 



Dear Rafik, 


Thanks. I will have time to do this starting Wednesday, Thurday and Friday. Could you please explain to me if the colors have a particular meaning. I have not been able to figure it out... sorry :) 


Merci! 


Marie-laure 





On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 5:24 AM, Rafik Dammak < rafik.dammak at gmail.com > wrote: 



Hi Robin, 


sorry for delay, I updated the "pending applications" file, we have 29 applications to cover , for this week hopefully and I think that is doable. 
please check this file for review https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dENsT21PLTFmeW9qZ2pLLWowc3RTbmc&usp=sharing . 
I will be glad to assist our new EC members regarding the review process 
In other hand, for a better applications solution, I will be glad to discuss with ICANN staff. 


Best, 




Rafik 




2013/8/28 Robin Gross < robin at ipjustice.org > 


Dear All: 

As you all know, we need an integrated membership database solution to manage the NCSG membership applications, membership rosters, etc. and ICANN hasn't yet provided a solution (although it said it was working on one for all of ICANN, not just NCSG). So in the meantime, we are using these Google docs spreadsheets to manage the membership data, even though it is rather cumbersome to navigate and far from the best solution. 

Reminder that the data for incoming NCSG Membership applications is stored in a spreadsheet and available to EC members here: 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ane1uzL43HhedDFhOWZOTEVhMzZUYUszVFhpX1JEU1E&usp=sharing 

The spreadsheet that keeps track of the immediately pending applications, including how each NCSG member votes on a given application is here: 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dENsT21PLTFmeW9qZ2pLLWowc3RTbmc&usp=sharing 

I believe Rafik volunteered to update the immediately above PENDING applications link to reflect the new applications that have come in for evaluation in the last few weeks and that we need to evaluate now. 

Each NCSG EC member should then evaluate the application against NCSG's membership criteria and noncommercial mission and then we vote on the application's approval in the above link. Sometimes there are questions or info is not complete so follow-ups are needed with applicants. 

We can type our vote or comment directly into the PENDING spreadsheet so the discussion is all in one place and publicly available (and applicants can keep track of their application by looking at this link). We evaluate the data supplied by the applicant in the spreadsheet at 1st link (private) above, but we each vote in the spreadsheet 2nd link (public). Again, the need for an integrated membership database..... Thanks very much. 

Please let me know if you have any questions on this. 

Best, 
Robin 


_______________________________________________ 
EC-NCSG mailing list 
EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org 
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg 


_______________________________________________ 
EC-NCSG mailing list 
EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org 
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg 





_______________________________________________
EC-NCSG mailing list
EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg



From rafik.dammak  Wed Sep 18 16:54:29 2013
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 22:54:29 +0900
Subject: [EC-NCSG] NCSG Membership Applications and EC Evaluation
	Procedures
In-Reply-To: <CAD3sNqEO4UZ+ejwtCxs123Woxv+Nh+rg2aPOyTEW=m12jaG4eA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C8858362-2206-411D-92FC-1BA33D5172C2@ipjustice.org>
	<CAH5sThm+ci6jyhAKqAOOWkruiHTkg+oY2SMax-R2uj1huFyTeg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqGng-eDGBVe2Y=74MLGK=CtF_X_D9pbvj-OiwDtwNKBpQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThmMe4RH351Otmc415NGnXJgMFR9LaSDaWPntMo2ND4Eyg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqEO4UZ+ejwtCxs123Woxv+Nh+rg2aPOyTEW=m12jaG4eA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=CKhy5B4Xa6WTJOUtMOYHnha3FcYd6nysNPfsv85Sp0Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

Thanks to Marie-Laure for the editing and new format,
I am cautious with using excel file and exchanging different versions by
email sinceit will be hard to follow with 5 people having to write down
their decision. I can upload this new document as google doc(or google
drive) and sharing it with all EC members for editing. so we approve some
applications quickly without prejudicing others
I think that we can go for all pending applications, some of them we have
processed and got to get some clarifications from applicants.
we can have 1 week to cover those 42 applications, each EC member stating
approve/disapprove and giving rationale for the latter after doing doing
due digilence for review applicants. having some questions, we can ask
applicants for clarification.
we don't have a checklist per se, but we have the criteria for eligibility
for organisational and individual membership stated in our charter
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Charter
having a deadline will help us to go forward. we can also have a confcall
if discuss on specific applications and take actions
does it make sense?if there is no objection, we can proceed following that.

Best,

Rafik


2013/9/11 marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>

> Dear Rafik, Robin, Lori and al.,
>
> Over these last days I  have started to review the list of pending
> applications that Rafik kindly uploaded. Rafik answering a question I asked
> him told me I should review row 1 to 32 ie review 31 applications. I
> started doing it but realized the following:
>
> -the current list uploaded gathers pending applications and already
> approved applications;
> - Since Rafik had already worked on the list. I self-volunteered to also
> contribute and not bother Rafik anymore. This is why I proceeded, in the
> document that you will find attached,  to separate what is labelled on the
> original list sent by Rafik as "pending" and what is labelled as "approved
> applications". They are three taps in the same Excel doc;
> -As a result of this, you will realize that instead of having 117 rows
> with mixed application status, now we have  a  list of strictly pending
> applications from row 1 to row 43 on one list which means that there are
> only 42 pending applications;
> -the 61 approved applications have been copied and pasted in the separate
> list;
> -Among those 42 applications I am aware of some who have been in the queue
> for quite some time now;
>
>  I am proposing that instead of reviewing 31 applications we might as well
> review the 42 ie the whole batch. It does not really make sense (in my
> humble opinion)  to left out 11 applications and it does not make a huge
> difference either. If we do this round, we might as well want to complete
> it once for all.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Marie-laure
>
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi Marie-Laure,
>>
>> no problem,
>> please review the application from row #2 to row # 30, they are the
>> latest applications we should cover.
>> for colors, they are used for old application we checked previously,
>> maybe Robin can explain better about their meaning.
>>
>> best,
>>
>>  Rafik
>>
>>
>> 2013/9/3 marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>
>>
>>> Dear Rafik,
>>>
>>> Thanks. I will have time to do this starting Wednesday, Thurday and
>>> Friday. Could you please explain to me if the colors have a particular
>>> meaning. I have not been able to figure it out... sorry :)
>>>
>>> Merci!
>>>
>>> Marie-laure
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 5:24 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Robin,
>>>>
>>>> sorry for delay, I updated the "pending applications" file, we have 29
>>>> applications to cover , for this week hopefully and I think that is doable.
>>>> please check this file for review
>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dENsT21PLTFmeW9qZ2pLLWowc3RTbmc&usp=sharing
>>>> .
>>>> I will be glad to assist our new EC members regarding the review process
>>>> In other hand, for a better applications solution, I will be glad to
>>>> discuss with ICANN staff.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>>  Rafik
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2013/8/28 Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>>>>
>>>>> Dear All:
>>>>>
>>>>> As you all know, we need an integrated membership database solution to
>>>>> manage the NCSG membership applications, membership rosters, etc. and ICANN
>>>>> hasn't yet provided a solution (although it said it was working on one for
>>>>> all of ICANN, not just NCSG).  So in the meantime, we are using these
>>>>> Google docs spreadsheets to manage the membership data, even though it is
>>>>> rather cumbersome to navigate and far from the best solution.
>>>>>
>>>>> Reminder that the data for incoming NCSG Membership applications is
>>>>> stored in a spreadsheet and available to EC members here:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ane1uzL43HhedDFhOWZOTEVhMzZUYUszVFhpX1JEU1E&usp=sharing
>>>>>
>>>>> The spreadsheet that keeps track of the immediately pending
>>>>> applications, including how each NCSG member votes on a given application
>>>>> is here:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dENsT21PLTFmeW9qZ2pLLWowc3RTbmc&usp=sharing
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe Rafik volunteered to update the immediately above PENDING
>>>>> applications link to reflect the new applications that have come in for
>>>>> evaluation in the last few weeks and that we need to evaluate now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Each NCSG EC member should then evaluate the application against
>>>>> NCSG's membership criteria and noncommercial mission and then we vote on
>>>>> the application's approval in the above link.  Sometimes there are
>>>>> questions or info is not complete so follow-ups are needed with applicants.
>>>>>
>>>>> We can type our vote or comment directly into the PENDING spreadsheet
>>>>> so the discussion is all in one place and publicly available (and
>>>>> applicants can keep track of their application by looking at this link).
>>>>>  We evaluate the data supplied by the applicant in the spreadsheet at 1st
>>>>> link (private) above, but we each vote in the spreadsheet 2nd link
>>>>> (public).   Again, the need for an integrated membership database.....
>>>>>  Thanks very much.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please let me know if you have any questions on this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Robin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20130918/565032fd/attachment.html>


From mllemineur  Fri Sep 20 19:54:33 2013
From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 10:54:33 -0600
Subject: [EC-NCSG] NCSG Membership Applications and EC Evaluation
	Procedures
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=CKhy5B4Xa6WTJOUtMOYHnha3FcYd6nysNPfsv85Sp0Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C8858362-2206-411D-92FC-1BA33D5172C2@ipjustice.org>
	<CAH5sThm+ci6jyhAKqAOOWkruiHTkg+oY2SMax-R2uj1huFyTeg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqGng-eDGBVe2Y=74MLGK=CtF_X_D9pbvj-OiwDtwNKBpQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThmMe4RH351Otmc415NGnXJgMFR9LaSDaWPntMo2ND4Eyg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqEO4UZ+ejwtCxs123Woxv+Nh+rg2aPOyTEW=m12jaG4eA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=CKhy5B4Xa6WTJOUtMOYHnha3FcYd6nysNPfsv85Sp0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD3sNqH_dpnfxYQkqFeq5FqZsoGUMpzRjbW_hqgWkxdG0xLydA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Rafik,

Uploading the "new excell doc/the only pending applications" does make a
lot of sense  for all the reasons you mention. Setting up a deadline
(as well as a formal starting date!) would also be a good thing in my
opinion. Only I think that having a deadline that would allow us a two
weeks time frame instead of just one week would be more realistic. Since we
are five people, it would provide more flexibility for each of us to get
organized and plan the time needed to review all applications. Maybe the
conf call can be arranged towards the end of the deadline, to have an
opportunity to share opinions in case there is disagreement over some
applications. I don' t know if that was the objective of the conf call you
proposed but I would agree with doing it anyway.

Best,

Marie-laure


On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Thanks to Marie-Laure for the editing and new format,
> I am cautious with using excel file and exchanging different versions by
> email sinceit will be hard to follow with 5 people having to write down
> their decision. I can upload this new document as google doc(or google
> drive) and sharing it with all EC members for editing. so we approve some
> applications quickly without prejudicing others
> I think that we can go for all pending applications, some of them we have
> processed and got to get some clarifications from applicants.
> we can have 1 week to cover those 42 applications, each EC member stating
> approve/disapprove and giving rationale for the latter after doing doing
> due digilence for review applicants. having some questions, we can ask
> applicants for clarification.
> we don't have a checklist per se, but we have the criteria for eligibility
> for organisational and individual membership stated in our charter
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Charter
> having a deadline will help us to go forward. we can also have a confcall
> if discuss on specific applications and take actions
> does it make sense?if there is no objection, we can proceed following that.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
> 2013/9/11 marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>
>
>> Dear Rafik, Robin, Lori and al.,
>>
>> Over these last days I  have started to review the list of pending
>> applications that Rafik kindly uploaded. Rafik answering a question I asked
>> him told me I should review row 1 to 32 ie review 31 applications. I
>> started doing it but realized the following:
>>
>> -the current list uploaded gathers pending applications and already
>> approved applications;
>> - Since Rafik had already worked on the list. I self-volunteered to also
>> contribute and not bother Rafik anymore. This is why I proceeded, in the
>> document that you will find attached,  to separate what is labelled on the
>> original list sent by Rafik as "pending" and what is labelled as "approved
>> applications". They are three taps in the same Excel doc;
>> -As a result of this, you will realize that instead of having 117 rows
>> with mixed application status, now we have  a  list of strictly pending
>> applications from row 1 to row 43 on one list which means that there are
>> only 42 pending applications;
>> -the 61 approved applications have been copied and pasted in the separate
>> list;
>> -Among those 42 applications I am aware of some who have been in the
>> queue for quite some time now;
>>
>>  I am proposing that instead of reviewing 31 applications we might as
>> well review the 42 ie the whole batch. It does not really make sense (in my
>> humble opinion)  to left out 11 applications and it does not make a huge
>> difference either. If we do this round, we might as well want to complete
>> it once for all.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Marie-laure
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Marie-Laure,
>>>
>>> no problem,
>>> please review the application from row #2 to row # 30, they are the
>>> latest applications we should cover.
>>> for colors, they are used for old application we checked previously,
>>> maybe Robin can explain better about their meaning.
>>>
>>> best,
>>>
>>>  Rafik
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/9/3 marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>
>>>
>>>> Dear Rafik,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks. I will have time to do this starting Wednesday, Thurday and
>>>> Friday. Could you please explain to me if the colors have a particular
>>>> meaning. I have not been able to figure it out... sorry :)
>>>>
>>>> Merci!
>>>>
>>>> Marie-laure
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 5:24 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Robin,
>>>>>
>>>>> sorry for delay, I updated the "pending applications" file, we have 29
>>>>> applications to cover , for this week hopefully and I think that is doable.
>>>>> please check this file for review
>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dENsT21PLTFmeW9qZ2pLLWowc3RTbmc&usp=sharing
>>>>> .
>>>>> I will be glad to assist our new EC members regarding the review
>>>>> process
>>>>> In other hand, for a better applications solution, I will be glad to
>>>>> discuss with ICANN staff.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>>  Rafik
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2013/8/28 Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear All:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As you all know, we need an integrated membership database solution
>>>>>> to manage the NCSG membership applications, membership rosters, etc. and
>>>>>> ICANN hasn't yet provided a solution (although it said it was working on
>>>>>> one for all of ICANN, not just NCSG).  So in the meantime, we are using
>>>>>> these Google docs spreadsheets to manage the membership data, even though
>>>>>> it is rather cumbersome to navigate and far from the best solution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reminder that the data for incoming NCSG Membership applications is
>>>>>> stored in a spreadsheet and available to EC members here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ane1uzL43HhedDFhOWZOTEVhMzZUYUszVFhpX1JEU1E&usp=sharing
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The spreadsheet that keeps track of the immediately pending
>>>>>> applications, including how each NCSG member votes on a given application
>>>>>> is here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dENsT21PLTFmeW9qZ2pLLWowc3RTbmc&usp=sharing
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe Rafik volunteered to update the immediately above PENDING
>>>>>> applications link to reflect the new applications that have come in for
>>>>>> evaluation in the last few weeks and that we need to evaluate now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Each NCSG EC member should then evaluate the application against
>>>>>> NCSG's membership criteria and noncommercial mission and then we vote on
>>>>>> the application's approval in the above link.  Sometimes there are
>>>>>> questions or info is not complete so follow-ups are needed with applicants.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can type our vote or comment directly into the PENDING spreadsheet
>>>>>> so the discussion is all in one place and publicly available (and
>>>>>> applicants can keep track of their application by looking at this link).
>>>>>>  We evaluate the data supplied by the applicant in the spreadsheet at 1st
>>>>>> link (private) above, but we each vote in the spreadsheet 2nd link
>>>>>> (public).   Again, the need for an integrated membership database.....
>>>>>>  Thanks very much.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please let me know if you have any questions on this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20130920/d1755f3e/attachment.html>


From lori.schulman  Fri Sep 20 20:03:47 2013
From: lori.schulman (Lori Schulman)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 17:03:47 +0000
Subject: [EC-NCSG] NCSG Membership Applications and EC
	Evaluation	Procedures
In-Reply-To: <CAD3sNqH_dpnfxYQkqFeq5FqZsoGUMpzRjbW_hqgWkxdG0xLydA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C8858362-2206-411D-92FC-1BA33D5172C2@ipjustice.org>
	<CAH5sThm+ci6jyhAKqAOOWkruiHTkg+oY2SMax-R2uj1huFyTeg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqGng-eDGBVe2Y=74MLGK=CtF_X_D9pbvj-OiwDtwNKBpQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThmMe4RH351Otmc415NGnXJgMFR9LaSDaWPntMo2ND4Eyg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqEO4UZ+ejwtCxs123Woxv+Nh+rg2aPOyTEW=m12jaG4eA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=CKhy5B4Xa6WTJOUtMOYHnha3FcYd6nysNPfsv85Sp0Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqH_dpnfxYQkqFeq5FqZsoGUMpzRjbW_hqgWkxdG0xLydA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <07F06E6EBD995844BDC9E2F0714E727A52C3FB67@EX2K10MAILBOX2.ascd.org>

Dear Rafik and Marie,

Thank you for taking the lead on organizing the process and creating a common workspace for our group to evaluate membership applications.

My thoughts about this are that I cannot possibly review 42 applications in a week and maybe not even 2 weeks given my work load.    I suggest that it may make more sense for the work to be divided, each member taking a set of names, doing a predetermined level of diligence (Internet search, check website, etc.), capturing the results in a common file and making a recommendation to the group.   Otherwise, we would be doing redundant work.   It is also my thought that this is an administrative function that should be supported by ICANN staff.  My experience with volunteer organizations in the past is that the organization gathers and organizes the information and then the volunteers  provide their input and expertise.  In this case, our input would be the act of approving the applications based on information packets assembled by ICANN.   While I certainly would like to cooperate and fulfill my obligations as an EC member, I am not in the position to do administrative work.  It is possible to get some dedicated ICANN support for this ongoing work?  Who would we have to contact?

Lori


Lori S. Schulman * General Counsel
P 703-575-5678 * Lori.Schulman at ascd.org<mailto:Lori.Schulman at ascd.org>
[Description: cid:image001.png at 01CC81E2.512C46F0]



From: ec-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:ec-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of marie-laure Lemineur
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 12:55 PM
To: Rafik Dammak
Cc: ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Subject: Re: [EC-NCSG] NCSG Membership Applications and EC Evaluation Procedures

Dear Rafik,

Uploading the "new excell doc/the only pending applications" does make a lot of sense  for all the reasons you mention. Setting up a deadline     (as well as a formal starting date!) would also be a good thing in my opinion. Only I think that having a deadline that would allow us a two weeks time frame instead of just one week would be more realistic. Since we are five people, it would provide more flexibility for each of us to get organized and plan the time needed to review all applications. Maybe the conf call can be arranged towards the end of the deadline, to have an opportunity to share opinions in case there is disagreement over some applications. I don' t know if that was the objective of the conf call you proposed but I would agree with doing it anyway.

Best,

Marie-laure

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi,

Thanks to Marie-Laure for the editing and new format,
I am cautious with using excel file and exchanging different versions by email sinceit will be hard to follow with 5 people having to write down their decision. I can upload this new document as google doc(or google drive) and sharing it with all EC members for editing. so we approve some applications quickly without prejudicing others
I think that we can go for all pending applications, some of them we have processed and got to get some clarifications from applicants.
we can have 1 week to cover those 42 applications, each EC member stating approve/disapprove and giving rationale for the latter after doing doing due digilence for review applicants. having some questions, we can ask applicants for clarification.
we don't have a checklist per se, but we have the criteria for eligibility for organisational and individual membership stated in our charter https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Charter
having a deadline will help us to go forward. we can also have a confcall if discuss on specific applications and take actions
does it make sense?if there is no objection, we can proceed following that.

Best,

Rafik

2013/9/11 marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com<mailto:mllemineur at gmail.com>>
Dear Rafik, Robin, Lori and al.,

Over these last days I  have started to review the list of pending applications that Rafik kindly uploaded. Rafik answering a question I asked him told me I should review row 1 to 32 ie review 31 applications. I started doing it but realized the following:

-the current list uploaded gathers pending applications and already approved applications;
- Since Rafik had already worked on the list. I self-volunteered to also contribute and not bother Rafik anymore. This is why I proceeded, in the document that you will find attached,  to separate what is labelled on the original list sent by Rafik as "pending" and what is labelled as "approved applications". They are three taps in the same Excel doc;
-As a result of this, you will realize that instead of having 117 rows with mixed application status, now we have  a  list of strictly pending applications from row 1 to row 43 on one list which means that there are only 42 pending applications;
-the 61 approved applications have been copied and pasted in the separate list;
-Among those 42 applications I am aware of some who have been in the queue for quite some time now;

 I am proposing that instead of reviewing 31 applications we might as well review the 42 ie the whole batch. It does not really make sense (in my humble opinion)  to left out 11 applications and it does not make a huge difference either. If we do this round, we might as well want to complete it once for all.

Best regards,

Marie-laure
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Marie-Laure,

no problem,
please review the application from row #2 to row # 30, they are the latest applications we should cover.
for colors, they are used for old application we checked previously, maybe Robin can explain better about their meaning.

best,

Rafik

2013/9/3 marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com<mailto:mllemineur at gmail.com>>
Dear Rafik,

Thanks. I will have time to do this starting Wednesday, Thurday and Friday. Could you please explain to me if the colors have a particular meaning. I have not been able to figure it out... sorry :)

Merci!

Marie-laure

On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 5:24 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Robin,

sorry for delay, I updated the "pending applications" file, we have 29 applications to cover , for this week hopefully and I think that is doable.
please check this file for review https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dENsT21PLTFmeW9qZ2pLLWowc3RTbmc&usp=sharing.
I will be glad to assist our new EC members regarding the review process
In other hand, for a better applications solution, I will be glad to discuss with ICANN staff.

Best,

Rafik

2013/8/28 Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
Dear All:

As you all know, we need an integrated membership database solution to manage the NCSG membership applications, membership rosters, etc. and ICANN hasn't yet provided a solution (although it said it was working on one for all of ICANN, not just NCSG).  So in the meantime, we are using these Google docs spreadsheets to manage the membership data, even though it is rather cumbersome to navigate and far from the best solution.

Reminder that the data for incoming NCSG Membership applications is stored in a spreadsheet and available to EC members here:
  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ane1uzL43HhedDFhOWZOTEVhMzZUYUszVFhpX1JEU1E&usp=sharing

The spreadsheet that keeps track of the immediately pending applications, including how each NCSG member votes on a given application is here:
  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dENsT21PLTFmeW9qZ2pLLWowc3RTbmc&usp=sharing

I believe Rafik volunteered to update the immediately above PENDING applications link to reflect the new applications that have come in for evaluation in the last few weeks and that we need to evaluate now.

Each NCSG EC member should then evaluate the application against NCSG's membership criteria and noncommercial mission and then we vote on the application's approval in the above link.  Sometimes there are questions or info is not complete so follow-ups are needed with applicants.

We can type our vote or comment directly into the PENDING spreadsheet so the discussion is all in one place and publicly available (and applicants can keep track of their application by looking at this link).  We evaluate the data supplied by the applicant in the spreadsheet at 1st link (private) above, but we each vote in the spreadsheet 2nd link (public).   Again, the need for an integrated membership database.....  Thanks very much.

Please let me know if you have any questions on this.

Best,
Robin


_______________________________________________
EC-NCSG mailing list
EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg


_______________________________________________
EC-NCSG mailing list
EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg








"Join us at the ASCD Conference on Educational Leadership, November 1-3, 2013, at The Cosmopolitan(tm) in fabulous Las Vegas, Nev. Learn and network with the highest-performing education leaders and best-selling authors of proven leadership resources. Register now at www.ascd.org/CEL<http://www.ascd.org/CEL>."



This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of

the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is

confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or

have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy,
distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the
sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any

attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20130920/09fc5690/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2196 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20130920/09fc5690/attachment-0001.jpg>


From robin  Fri Sep 20 23:02:58 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 13:02:58 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] ICANN #48 Meetings Plan - NCSG with ATRT in Buenos Aires?
Message-ID: <147AA2CD-64FC-4449-903C-11CE5B6E2114@ipjustice.org>

Folks,

I'm working on the ICANN #48 in Buenos Aires meetings plan and want to schedule some time for NCSG with the ATRT team.  We have the option of them coming to the NCSG mtg on Tuesday afternoon (19 Nov) and talking with us during the NCSG mtg or we can set up a separate dedicated meeting with them on another time during 18-19-20 November in BA.  My preference would be the separate, dedicated, meeting between NCSG and the ATRT because we only have 2-hours on Tuesday to cover lots of different issues and it would be better if we could spend some focused time, at least an hour with ATRT in BA in my view.  However, I don't want to schedule a meeting and have no one show-up because of other commitments during the week, so please let me know if you think a separate mtg between NCSG & ATRT in BA would be useful and if so, would (the 18th) Monday afternoon be a good time to propose for this meeting?

Also, I've started to keep track of the various NCSG meeting details for ICANN #48 in BA here:
  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dHN4SURHZUZSSUswQ3BJXzl4ZWUzNXc#gid=0

Thanks much,
Robin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20130920/ef0218bf/attachment.html>


From mllemineur  Sat Sep 21 03:14:54 2013
From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 18:14:54 -0600
Subject: [EC-NCSG] NCSG Membership Applications and EC Evaluation
	Procedures
In-Reply-To: <07F06E6EBD995844BDC9E2F0714E727A52C3FB67@EX2K10MAILBOX2.ascd.org>
References: <C8858362-2206-411D-92FC-1BA33D5172C2@ipjustice.org>
	<CAH5sThm+ci6jyhAKqAOOWkruiHTkg+oY2SMax-R2uj1huFyTeg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqGng-eDGBVe2Y=74MLGK=CtF_X_D9pbvj-OiwDtwNKBpQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThmMe4RH351Otmc415NGnXJgMFR9LaSDaWPntMo2ND4Eyg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqEO4UZ+ejwtCxs123Woxv+Nh+rg2aPOyTEW=m12jaG4eA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=CKhy5B4Xa6WTJOUtMOYHnha3FcYd6nysNPfsv85Sp0Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqH_dpnfxYQkqFeq5FqZsoGUMpzRjbW_hqgWkxdG0xLydA@mail.gmail.com>
	<07F06E6EBD995844BDC9E2F0714E727A52C3FB67@EX2K10MAILBOX2.ascd.org>
Message-ID: <CAD3sNqFzBbvkM=ezNS1DgAzMsqxtPN3rvax1PeuYsCVYbLQK1Q@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Lori and al.

Thank you for your suggestion. You are right, the workload is important,
but since the membership process is chartered the way it is chartered, I
would like to make a counter proposal to you Lori, and others. Why don' t
we give it a try to the two weeks time frame and we see how it goes. If the
workload is too much, over the conf call we could always decide to extend a
little bit depending on how we assess the situation then. Does this sounds
reasonable to all of you? About ICANN staff support, I love the idea but
Rafik, Robin and Milton could maybe tell us more about this based on their
experience. Do you see it viable ?

Best,

Marie-laure



Dear Lori,

Thank you for suggesting alternative solutions. I am going to be
straightforward with you about the whole membership issue between NPOC and
NCSG. Unfortunately, experience has showned that it would not be in NPOC's
 interests to have a split review. Historically, there has been many
intents to manipulate the pending list applications, many delays and
rejection specifically of  NPOC applications by non-npoc members who are
reviewing the applications. Part of the pressure I am putting on Rafik,
Robin and Milton is  to have more transparency and a more agile mechanism.
I have noticed that for example, in the last original list sent by Rafik,
he had asked us to review the first 32 applications and had left out most
NPOC applications. 90% of the 32 applications were only NCUC and NCSG. I
hate to have to talk to you about that, this is not my style nor this is
very professional nevertheless, this is the context we are in and we should
bear it in mind at all time. I will not trust them until they prove to me I
can trust them. I am usually the other way round, but in their case there
has been so much bad faith and so many lies that we need to be extra
careful.

Part of my goals is to increase NPOC membership from 35 to 50-60 by the
time my term ends. This has been impossible under Alain leadership despite
all his efforts and the fight he put, particularly with Rafik. They used to
invent all sorts of bad excuses to refuse/delay our NPOC applications, as
you will see when they comment on it. Also what they are doing is giving
priority to individual members applications  since  NPOC can not admit
individual members.

Once again, I am not comfortable telling you all this, but I think this
background information is important to have so that you are  aware of the
bigger issues. I guess I should have told you that before, but I was
reluctant to do it for the reasons I already mentioned.

Best regards,

Marie-laure






On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman at ascd.org>wrote:

>  Dear Rafik and Marie,
>
>
>
> Thank you for taking the lead on organizing the process and creating a
> common workspace for our group to evaluate membership applications.
>
>
>
> My thoughts about this are that I cannot possibly review 42 applications
> in a week and maybe not even 2 weeks given my work load.    I suggest that
> it may make more sense for the work to be divided, each member taking a set
> of names, doing a predetermined level of diligence (Internet search, check
> website, etc.), capturing the results in a common file and making a
> recommendation to the group.   Otherwise, we would be doing redundant
> work.   It is also my thought that this is an administrative function that
> should be supported by ICANN staff.  My experience with volunteer
> organizations in the past is that the organization gathers and organizes
> the information and then the volunteers  provide their input and
> expertise.  In this case, our input would be the act of approving the
> applications based on information packets assembled by ICANN.   While I
> certainly would like to cooperate and fulfill my obligations as an EC
> member, I am not in the position to do administrative work.  It is possible
> to get some dedicated ICANN support for this ongoing work?  Who would we
> have to contact?
>
>
>
> Lori
>
>
>
>
>
> *Lori S. Schulman* ? General Counsel
> P 703-575-5678 ? Lori.Schulman at ascd.org
> [image: Description: cid:image001.png at 01CC81E2.512C46F0]
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ec-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:
> ec-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] *On Behalf Of *marie-laure Lemineur
> *Sent:* Friday, September 20, 2013 12:55 PM
>
> *To:* Rafik Dammak
> *Cc:* ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> *Subject:* Re: [EC-NCSG] NCSG Membership Applications and EC Evaluation
> Procedures
>
>
>
> Dear Rafik,
>
>
>
> Uploading the "new excell doc/the only pending applications" does make a
> lot of sense  for all the reasons you mention. Setting up a deadline
> (as well as a formal starting date!) would also be a good thing in my
> opinion. Only I think that having a deadline that would allow us a two
> weeks time frame instead of just one week would be more realistic. Since we
> are five people, it would provide more flexibility for each of us to get
> organized and plan the time needed to review all applications. Maybe the
> conf call can be arranged towards the end of the deadline, to have an
> opportunity to share opinions in case there is disagreement over some
> applications. I don' t know if that was the objective of the conf call you
> proposed but I would agree with doing it anyway.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Marie-laure
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Thanks to Marie-Laure for the editing and new format,
>
> I am cautious with using excel file and exchanging different versions by
> email sinceit will be hard to follow with 5 people having to write down
> their decision. I can upload this new document as google doc(or google
> drive) and sharing it with all EC members for editing. so we approve some
> applications quickly without prejudicing others
>
> I think that we can go for all pending applications, some of them we have
> processed and got to get some clarifications from applicants.
>
> we can have 1 week to cover those 42 applications, each EC member stating
> approve/disapprove and giving rationale for the latter after doing doing
> due digilence for review applicants. having some questions, we can ask
> applicants for clarification.
>
> we don't have a checklist per se, but we have the criteria for eligibility
> for organisational and individual membership stated in our charter
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Charter
>
> having a deadline will help us to go forward. we can also have a confcall
> if discuss on specific applications and take actions
>
> does it make sense?if there is no objection, we can proceed following that.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>   Rafik
>
>
>
> 2013/9/11 marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>
>
> Dear Rafik, Robin, Lori and al.,
>
>
>
> Over these last days I  have started to review the list of pending
> applications that Rafik kindly uploaded. Rafik answering a question I asked
> him told me I should review row 1 to 32 ie review 31 applications. I
> started doing it but realized the following:
>
>
>
> -the current list uploaded gathers pending applications and already
> approved applications;
>
> - Since Rafik had already worked on the list. I self-volunteered to also
> contribute and not bother Rafik anymore. This is why I proceeded, in the
> document that you will find attached,  to separate what is labelled on the
> original list sent by Rafik as "pending" and what is labelled as "approved
> applications". They are three taps in the same Excel doc;
>
> -As a result of this, you will realize that instead of having 117 rows
> with mixed application status, now we have  a  list of strictly pending
> applications from row 1 to row 43 on one list which means that there are
> only 42 pending applications;
>
> -the 61 approved applications have been copied and pasted in the separate
> list;
>
> -Among those 42 applications I am aware of some who have been in the queue
> for quite some time now;
>
>
>
>  I am proposing that instead of reviewing 31 applications we might as well
> review the 42 ie the whole batch. It does not really make sense (in my
> humble opinion)  to left out 11 applications and it does not make a huge
> difference either. If we do this round, we might as well want to complete
> it once for all.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Marie-laure
>
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Marie-Laure,
>
>
>
> no problem,
>
> please review the application from row #2 to row # 30, they are the latest
> applications we should cover.
>
> for colors, they are used for old application we checked previously, maybe
> Robin can explain better about their meaning.
>
>
>
> best,
>
>
>   Rafik
>
>
>
> 2013/9/3 marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>
>
> Dear Rafik,
>
>
>
> Thanks. I will have time to do this starting Wednesday, Thurday and
> Friday. Could you please explain to me if the colors have a particular
> meaning. I have not been able to figure it out... sorry :)
>
>
>
> Merci!
>
>
>
> Marie-laure
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 5:24 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Robin,
>
>
>
> sorry for delay, I updated the "pending applications" file, we have 29
> applications to cover , for this week hopefully and I think that is doable.
>
> please check this file for review
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dENsT21PLTFmeW9qZ2pLLWowc3RTbmc&usp=sharing
> .
>
> I will be glad to assist our new EC members regarding the review process
>
> In other hand, for a better applications solution, I will be glad to
> discuss with ICANN staff.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>   Rafik
>
>
>
> 2013/8/28 Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>
> Dear All:
>
> As you all know, we need an integrated membership database solution to
> manage the NCSG membership applications, membership rosters, etc. and ICANN
> hasn't yet provided a solution (although it said it was working on one for
> all of ICANN, not just NCSG).  So in the meantime, we are using these
> Google docs spreadsheets to manage the membership data, even though it is
> rather cumbersome to navigate and far from the best solution.
>
> Reminder that the data for incoming NCSG Membership applications is stored
> in a spreadsheet and available to EC members here:
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ane1uzL43HhedDFhOWZOTEVhMzZUYUszVFhpX1JEU1E&usp=sharing
>
> The spreadsheet that keeps track of the immediately pending applications,
> including how each NCSG member votes on a given application is here:
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dENsT21PLTFmeW9qZ2pLLWowc3RTbmc&usp=sharing
>
> I believe Rafik volunteered to update the immediately above PENDING
> applications link to reflect the new applications that have come in for
> evaluation in the last few weeks and that we need to evaluate now.
>
> Each NCSG EC member should then evaluate the application against NCSG's
> membership criteria and noncommercial mission and then we vote on the
> application's approval in the above link.  Sometimes there are questions or
> info is not complete so follow-ups are needed with applicants.
>
> We can type our vote or comment directly into the PENDING spreadsheet so
> the discussion is all in one place and publicly available (and applicants
> can keep track of their application by looking at this link).  We evaluate
> the data supplied by the applicant in the spreadsheet at 1st link (private)
> above, but we each vote in the spreadsheet 2nd link (public).   Again, the
> need for an integrated membership database.....  Thanks very much.
>
> Please let me know if you have any questions on this.
>
> Best,
> Robin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *?Join us at the ASCD Conference on Educational Leadership, November 1?3,
> 2013, at The Cosmopolitan? in fabulous Las Vegas, Nev. Learn and network
> with the highest-performing education leaders and best-selling authors of
> proven leadership resources. Register now at **www.ascd.org/CEL*<http://www.ascd.org/CEL>
> *.?*
>
>
> This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of
>
> the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is
>
> confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or
>
> have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy,
> distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the
> sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any
>
> attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20130920/96a3ecf2/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2196 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20130920/96a3ecf2/attachment-0001.jpg>


From robin  Sat Sep 21 03:52:33 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 17:52:33 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] NCSG Membership Applications and EC Evaluation
	Procedures
In-Reply-To: <CAD3sNqFzBbvkM=ezNS1DgAzMsqxtPN3rvax1PeuYsCVYbLQK1Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C8858362-2206-411D-92FC-1BA33D5172C2@ipjustice.org>
	<CAH5sThm+ci6jyhAKqAOOWkruiHTkg+oY2SMax-R2uj1huFyTeg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqGng-eDGBVe2Y=74MLGK=CtF_X_D9pbvj-OiwDtwNKBpQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThmMe4RH351Otmc415NGnXJgMFR9LaSDaWPntMo2ND4Eyg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqEO4UZ+ejwtCxs123Woxv+Nh+rg2aPOyTEW=m12jaG4eA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=CKhy5B4Xa6WTJOUtMOYHnha3FcYd6nysNPfsv85Sp0Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqH_dpnfxYQkqFeq5FqZsoGUMpzRjbW_hqgWkxdG0xLydA@mail.gmail.com>
	<07F06E6EBD995844BDC9E2F0714E727A52C3FB67@EX2K10MAILBOX2.ascd.org>
	<CAD3sNqFzBbvkM=ezNS1DgAzMsqxtPN3rvax1PeuYsCVYbLQK1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AFC6766A-90A5-42E9-A3A9-9B4A583847AA@ipjustice.org>

Dear Marie-Laure,

Wow, these are some very serious accusations:  "Inventing all sorts of bad excuses to refuse /delay NPOC applications" and "giving priority to individual members applications" and "so many lies" and "intents to manipulate the pending list applications", etc.  I don't know where to begin, but I'll try.

First of all, all votes by all NCSG Executive Committee meetings on every application are recorded on a publicly viewable spreadsheet to show all votes since 21 Dec. 2012:
  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dENsT21PLTFmeW9qZ2pLLWowc3RTbmc&usp=sharing
 
All additional discussions on all applications have been on the publicly viewable NCSG-EC email list (this list):
  http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg

And all EC meetings where any additional applications have been discussed have been recorded and transcribed are publicly viewable here:
  https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Current+NCSG+Meetings+-+Post+October+2012+ICANN+Annual+Meeting

So, please be careful alleging we have not been transparent, as there isn't any other discussions or decisions on any applications that are not recorded on these publicly viewable websites.

If you disagree with, or would like to push any particular application, just do it.  You don't need to wait for someone to tell you to.  Rafik was simply pointing to the "new batch" that no one has looked at yet - NOT limiting you.   All applications are always there for all EC members to view and vote on at any time.  No one needs to be told to do it in order to do it and it isn't fair to allege some kind of conspiracy because we were informed there is a new batch.  

I understand you are new to the EC and learning the process, but these accusatory presumptions are deeply concerning.  If there is any application you want approved, say "hey, I disagree with the rationale provided by so and so because of x" and we'll have a discussion about the merits of the issue.  There is no conspiracy to not approve NPOC members.  I am sorry you feel this way, since I thought we had come so far in working through hard feelings from the past.

Disappointed,
Robin



On Sep 20, 2013, at 5:14 PM, marie-laure Lemineur wrote:

> Dear Lori and al.
> 
> Thank you for your suggestion. You are right, the workload is important, but since the membership process is chartered the way it is chartered, I would like to make a counter proposal to you Lori, and others. Why don' t we give it a try to the two weeks time frame and we see how it goes. If the workload is too much, over the conf call we could always decide to extend a little bit depending on how we assess the situation then. Does this sounds reasonable to all of you? About ICANN staff support, I love the idea but Rafik, Robin and Milton could maybe tell us more about this based on their experience. Do you see it viable ? 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Marie-laure
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Lori,
> 
> Thank you for suggesting alternative solutions. I am going to be straightforward with you about the whole membership issue between NPOC and NCSG. Unfortunately, experience has showned that it would not be in NPOC's  interests to have a split review. Historically, there has been many intents to manipulate the pending list applications, many delays and rejection specifically of  NPOC applications by non-npoc members who are reviewing the applications. Part of the pressure I am putting on Rafik, Robin and Milton is  to have more transparency and a more agile mechanism. I have noticed that for example, in the last original list sent by Rafik, he had asked us to review the first 32 applications and had left out most NPOC applications. 90% of the 32 applications were only NCUC and NCSG. I hate to have to talk to you about that, this is not my style nor this is very professional nevertheless, this is the context we are in and we should bear it in mind at all time. I will not trust them until they prove to me I can trust them. I am usually the other way round, but in their case there has been so much bad faith and so many lies that we need to be extra careful. 
> 
> Part of my goals is to increase NPOC membership from 35 to 50-60 by the time my term ends. This has been impossible under Alain leadership despite all his efforts and the fight he put, particularly with Rafik. They used to invent all sorts of bad excuses to refuse/delay our NPOC applications, as you will see when they comment on it. Also what they are doing is giving priority to individual members applications  since  NPOC can not admit individual members. 
> 
> Once again, I am not comfortable telling you all this, but I think this background information is important to have so that you are  aware of the bigger issues. I guess I should have told you that before, but I was reluctant to do it for the reasons I already mentioned. 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Marie-laure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman at ascd.org> wrote:
> Dear Rafik and Marie,
> 
>  
> Thank you for taking the lead on organizing the process and creating a common workspace for our group to evaluate membership applications.
> 
>  
> My thoughts about this are that I cannot possibly review 42 applications in a week and maybe not even 2 weeks given my work load.    I suggest that it may make more sense for the work to be divided, each member taking a set of names, doing a predetermined level of diligence (Internet search, check website, etc.), capturing the results in a common file and making a recommendation to the group.   Otherwise, we would be doing redundant work.   It is also my thought that this is an administrative function that should be supported by ICANN staff.  My experience with volunteer organizations in the past is that the organization gathers and organizes the information and then the volunteers  provide their input and expertise.  In this case, our input would be the act of approving the applications based on information packets assembled by ICANN.   While I certainly would like to cooperate and fulfill my obligations as an EC member, I am not in the position to do administrative work.  It is possible to get some dedicated ICANN support for this ongoing work?  Who would we have to contact?
> 
>  
> Lori
> 
>  
>  
> Lori S. Schulman ? General Counsel
> P 703-575-5678 ? Lori.Schulman at ascd.org
> <image001.jpg>
> 
>  
>  
> From: ec-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:ec-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of marie-laure Lemineur
> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 12:55 PM
> 
> 
> To: Rafik Dammak
> Cc: ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> Subject: Re: [EC-NCSG] NCSG Membership Applications and EC Evaluation Procedures
> 
>  
> Dear Rafik,
> 
>  
> Uploading the "new excell doc/the only pending applications" does make a lot of sense  for all the reasons you mention. Setting up a deadline     (as well as a formal starting date!) would also be a good thing in my opinion. Only I think that having a deadline that would allow us a two weeks time frame instead of just one week would be more realistic. Since we are five people, it would provide more flexibility for each of us to get organized and plan the time needed to review all applications. Maybe the conf call can be arranged towards the end of the deadline, to have an opportunity to share opinions in case there is disagreement over some applications. I don' t know if that was the objective of the conf call you proposed but I would agree with doing it anyway. 
> 
>  
> Best,
> 
>  
> Marie-laure
> 
>  
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>  
> Thanks to Marie-Laure for the editing and new format,
> 
> I am cautious with using excel file and exchanging different versions by email sinceit will be hard to follow with 5 people having to write down their decision. I can upload this new document as google doc(or google drive) and sharing it with all EC members for editing. so we approve some applications quickly without prejudicing others
> 
> I think that we can go for all pending applications, some of them we have processed and got to get some clarifications from applicants.
> 
> we can have 1 week to cover those 42 applications, each EC member stating approve/disapprove and giving rationale for the latter after doing doing due digilence for review applicants. having some questions, we can ask applicants for clarification.
> 
> we don't have a checklist per se, but we have the criteria for eligibility for organisational and individual membership stated in our charter https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Charter
> 
> having a deadline will help us to go forward. we can also have a confcall if discuss on specific applications and take actions
> 
> does it make sense?if there is no objection, we can proceed following that.
> 
>  
> Best,
> 
> 
> Rafik 
> 
>  
> 2013/9/11 marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>
> 
> Dear Rafik, Robin, Lori and al.,
> 
>  
> Over these last days I  have started to review the list of pending applications that Rafik kindly uploaded. Rafik answering a question I asked him told me I should review row 1 to 32 ie review 31 applications. I started doing it but realized the following:
> 
>  
> -the current list uploaded gathers pending applications and already approved applications;
> 
> - Since Rafik had already worked on the list. I self-volunteered to also contribute and not bother Rafik anymore. This is why I proceeded, in the document that you will find attached,  to separate what is labelled on the original list sent by Rafik as "pending" and what is labelled as "approved applications". They are three taps in the same Excel doc;
> 
> -As a result of this, you will realize that instead of having 117 rows with mixed application status, now we have  a  list of strictly pending applications from row 1 to row 43 on one list which means that there are only 42 pending applications;
> 
> -the 61 approved applications have been copied and pasted in the separate list;
> 
> -Among those 42 applications I am aware of some who have been in the queue for quite some time now;
> 
>  
>  I am proposing that instead of reviewing 31 applications we might as well review the 42 ie the whole batch. It does not really make sense (in my humble opinion)  to left out 11 applications and it does not make a huge difference either. If we do this round, we might as well want to complete it once for all. 
> 
>  
> Best regards,
> 
>  
> Marie-laure  
> 
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Marie-Laure,
> 
>  
> no problem,
> 
> please review the application from row #2 to row # 30, they are the latest applications we should cover.
> 
> for colors, they are used for old application we checked previously, maybe Robin can explain better about their meaning.
> 
>  
> best,
> 
> 
> Rafik 
> 
>  
> 2013/9/3 marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>
> 
> Dear Rafik,
> 
>  
> Thanks. I will have time to do this starting Wednesday, Thurday and Friday. Could you please explain to me if the colors have a particular meaning. I have not been able to figure it out... sorry :)
> 
>  
> Merci! 
> 
>  
> Marie-laure
> 
>  
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 5:24 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Robin,
> 
>  
> sorry for delay, I updated the "pending applications" file, we have 29 applications to cover , for this week hopefully and I think that is doable.
> 
> please check this file for review https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dENsT21PLTFmeW9qZ2pLLWowc3RTbmc&usp=sharing.
> 
> I will be glad to assist our new EC members regarding the review process
> 
> In other hand, for a better applications solution, I will be glad to discuss with ICANN staff.
> 
>  
> Best,
> 
> 
> Rafik 
> 
>  
> 2013/8/28 Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> 
> Dear All:
> 
> As you all know, we need an integrated membership database solution to manage the NCSG membership applications, membership rosters, etc. and ICANN hasn't yet provided a solution (although it said it was working on one for all of ICANN, not just NCSG).  So in the meantime, we are using these Google docs spreadsheets to manage the membership data, even though it is rather cumbersome to navigate and far from the best solution.
> 
> Reminder that the data for incoming NCSG Membership applications is stored in a spreadsheet and available to EC members here:
>   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ane1uzL43HhedDFhOWZOTEVhMzZUYUszVFhpX1JEU1E&usp=sharing
> 
> The spreadsheet that keeps track of the immediately pending applications, including how each NCSG member votes on a given application is here:
>   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dENsT21PLTFmeW9qZ2pLLWowc3RTbmc&usp=sharing
> 
> I believe Rafik volunteered to update the immediately above PENDING applications link to reflect the new applications that have come in for evaluation in the last few weeks and that we need to evaluate now.
> 
> Each NCSG EC member should then evaluate the application against NCSG's membership criteria and noncommercial mission and then we vote on the application's approval in the above link.  Sometimes there are questions or info is not complete so follow-ups are needed with applicants.
> 
> We can type our vote or comment directly into the PENDING spreadsheet so the discussion is all in one place and publicly available (and applicants can keep track of their application by looking at this link).  We evaluate the data supplied by the applicant in the spreadsheet at 1st link (private) above, but we each vote in the spreadsheet 2nd link (public).   Again, the need for an integrated membership database.....  Thanks very much.
> 
> Please let me know if you have any questions on this.
> 
> Best,
> Robin
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
> 
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
> 
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> ?Join us at the ASCD Conference on Educational Leadership, November 1?3, 2013, at The Cosmopolitan? in fabulous Las Vegas, Nev. Learn and network with the highest-performing education leaders and best-selling authors of proven leadership resources. Register now at www.ascd.org/CEL.?
> 
> This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of
> 
> the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is
> 
> confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or
> 
> have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy,
> distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the
> sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any
> 
> attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20130920/160de136/attachment-0001.html>


From mllemineur  Sat Sep 21 06:13:44 2013
From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 21:13:44 -0600
Subject: [EC-NCSG] NCSG Membership Applications and EC Evaluation
	Procedures
In-Reply-To: <AFC6766A-90A5-42E9-A3A9-9B4A583847AA@ipjustice.org>
References: <C8858362-2206-411D-92FC-1BA33D5172C2@ipjustice.org>
	<CAH5sThm+ci6jyhAKqAOOWkruiHTkg+oY2SMax-R2uj1huFyTeg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqGng-eDGBVe2Y=74MLGK=CtF_X_D9pbvj-OiwDtwNKBpQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThmMe4RH351Otmc415NGnXJgMFR9LaSDaWPntMo2ND4Eyg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqEO4UZ+ejwtCxs123Woxv+Nh+rg2aPOyTEW=m12jaG4eA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=CKhy5B4Xa6WTJOUtMOYHnha3FcYd6nysNPfsv85Sp0Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqH_dpnfxYQkqFeq5FqZsoGUMpzRjbW_hqgWkxdG0xLydA@mail.gmail.com>
	<07F06E6EBD995844BDC9E2F0714E727A52C3FB67@EX2K10MAILBOX2.ascd.org>
	<CAD3sNqFzBbvkM=ezNS1DgAzMsqxtPN3rvax1PeuYsCVYbLQK1Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<AFC6766A-90A5-42E9-A3A9-9B4A583847AA@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CAD3sNqEVNaNbrK_70X5SD5zUi29kG5S7+QUJhEGKP2uFuptVOQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Robin,

You are right, these a serious accusations and now that it is out, I should
explain why I am saying that. One of the biggest and most frustrating issue
Alain has had to deal with has been the membership issue. You are aware
that he has spend hours arguing with those of you involved in the
"membership committee". The first big problem has been the membership form,
the funding sources questions.  This has taken a lot of energy from all of
us and really, I would say has been a burden. It is no secret that this has
been the object of many heated and endless discussions between Klaus
(former membership NPOC rep), Alain and some of you especially with Rafik.

Regarding the transparency, even if you are right, the list is public and
shared,  I believe we have no access to  the original account "bucket"
where all NCSG potential members apply regardless where they want to go
(NPOC, NCUC or NCSG). This impedes us at NPOC from really knowing who
applies for what and when they apply. This is not transparent and it is one
of the aspects that we need to fix.

When I read some of the comments justifying a "no" to an application, there
are individual comments that I was surprised to read  such as "not being in
favour of an organisation application because the website is a cc tld and
its mandate is not directly related to the DNS" (or something similar since
many comments have been deleted since then) when there are so many other
current members that have been approved being cc TLDs and have no direct
relations with the DNS such as the Finish Association for Librarians as
well as many others. Thus I wonder why is it that suddenly having a website
with a ccTLD is an acceptable reason to reject an application? This is the
type of arguments that will need to be discussed further.

As for the overall time it takes for processing applications, we have had
many negative feedback from potential members, about how slow is the
process and asking why. We all know it is too slow. This is big weakness.
Even if I am aware and acknowledge that we all are busy attending  many
other tasks we need to attend, you (the membership team) have demonstrated
that when there is need to be efficient you have been able to do it with
the last batch of approval. So why not be always as efficient with all
candidates ? Let' s do it and work together so that it happens. As I
mentioned to Nuno in an email, if NPOC grows, NCSG grows therefore it is in
the best interests of all if this happens.

The complexity of the list is another issue. Again, such disorganised
information, throws suspicions.  With the last version of the list, why is
it that I was able to identify several NPOC applications that were not
included in the 32 first rows that we were suppose to review when they
could all be reviewed as I suggested and was accepted later on.  Only a
person willing to dedicated many hours can understand and get familiar with
what is going on. Fortunately, it looks like we are on our way to resolve
that.

As I said to someone from the ATRT team once,  referring to some ICANN info
displayed on the website, the mistakes might or might not be intentional
but such disorganised info throws suspicion.

You are  right about me not being completely aware and familiar with the
whole process. Indeed, I have a lot to learn still. This is why I have been
seeking guidance from you and Rafik. Even if I have made these negative
comments,  you can also observe that I mention that my goal is to fight for
more transparency and more efficiency in the membership application process
so that we all grow, NPOC included, and not only NCSG and NCUC. It is
likely that the commercial house will get more and more stronger /powerful
within ICANN  - and the GNSO- with  the new TLD program which means that
NCSG/NPOC/NCUC all together also need to grow more powerful and not one at
the expense of another.

Finally, I wish to apologise, if I have offended anyone with my comments
and accusations. I really hope that the way we are going to work these
coming days, weeks and months will prove that my comments were unjustified
comments. I really hope that I will finish my term thinking and saying that
one of the lesson I learnt over the last year, is that I made a big mistake
by judging unfairly some colleagues.


Best,

Marie-laure


On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 6:52 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Dear Marie-Laure,
>
> Wow, these are some very serious accusations:  "Inventing all sorts of bad
> excuses to refuse /delay NPOC applications" and "giving priority to
> individual members applications" and "so many lies" and "intents to
> manipulate the pending list applications", etc.  I don't know where to
> begin, but I'll try.
>
> First of all, all votes by all NCSG Executive Committee meetings on every
> application are recorded on a publicly viewable spreadsheet to show all
> votes since 21 Dec. 2012:
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dENsT21PLTFmeW9qZ2pLLWowc3RTbmc&usp=sharing
> * *
> All additional discussions on all applications have been on the publicly
> viewable NCSG-EC email list (this list):
>   http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg<http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg>
>
> And all EC meetings where any additional applications have been discussed
> have been recorded and transcribed are publicly viewable here:
>
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Current+NCSG+Meetings+-+Post+October+2012+ICANN+Annual+Meeting
>
> So, please be careful alleging we have not been transparent, as there
> isn't any other discussions or decisions on any applications that are not
> recorded on these publicly viewable websites.
>
> If you disagree with, or would like to push any particular application,
> just do it.  You don't need to wait for someone to tell you to.  Rafik
> was simply pointing to the "new batch" that no one has looked at yet - NOT
> limiting you.   All applications are always there for all EC members to
> view and vote on at any time.  No one needs to be told to do it in order to
> do it and it isn't fair to allege some kind of conspiracy because we were
> informed there is a new batch.
>
> I understand you are new to the EC and learning the process, but these
> accusatory presumptions are deeply concerning.  If there is any application
> you want approved, say "hey, I disagree with the rationale provided by so
> and so because of x" and we'll have a discussion about the merits of the
> issue.  There is no conspiracy to not approve NPOC members.  I am sorry you
> feel this way, since I thought we had come so far in working through hard
> feelings from the past.
>
> Disappointed,
> Robin
>
>
>
> On Sep 20, 2013, at 5:14 PM, marie-laure Lemineur wrote:
>
> Dear Lori and al.
>
> Thank you for your suggestion. You are right, the workload is important,
> but since the membership process is chartered the way it is chartered, I
> would like to make a counter proposal to you Lori, and others. Why don' t
> we give it a try to the two weeks time frame and we see how it goes. If the
> workload is too much, over the conf call we could always decide to extend a
> little bit depending on how we assess the situation then. Does this sounds
> reasonable to all of you? About ICANN staff support, I love the idea but
> Rafik, Robin and Milton could maybe tell us more about this based on their
> experience. Do you see it viable ?
>
> Best,
>
> Marie-laure
>
>
>
> Dear Lori,
>
> Thank you for suggesting alternative solutions. I am going to be
> straightforward with you about the whole membership issue between NPOC and
> NCSG. Unfortunately, experience has showned that it would not be in NPOC's
>  interests to have a split review. Historically, there has been many
> intents to manipulate the pending list applications, many delays and
> rejection specifically of  NPOC applications by non-npoc members who are
> reviewing the applications. Part of the pressure I am putting on Rafik,
> Robin and Milton is  to have more transparency and a more agile mechanism.
> I have noticed that for example, in the last original list sent by Rafik,
> he had asked us to review the first 32 applications and had left out most
> NPOC applications. 90% of the 32 applications were only NCUC and NCSG. I
> hate to have to talk to you about that, this is not my style nor this is
> very professional nevertheless, this is the context we are in and we should
> bear it in mind at all time. I will not trust them until they prove to me I
> can trust them. I am usually the other way round, but in their case there
> has been so much bad faith and so many lies that we need to be extra
> careful.
>
> Part of my goals is to increase NPOC membership from 35 to 50-60 by the
> time my term ends. This has been impossible under Alain leadership despite
> all his efforts and the fight he put, particularly with Rafik. They used to
> invent all sorts of bad excuses to refuse/delay our NPOC applications, as
> you will see when they comment on it. Also what they are doing is giving
> priority to individual members applications  since  NPOC can not admit
> individual members.
>
> Once again, I am not comfortable telling you all this, but I think this
> background information is important to have so that you are  aware of the
> bigger issues. I guess I should have told you that before, but I was
> reluctant to do it for the reasons I already mentioned.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Marie-laure
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman at ascd.org>wrote:
>
>>  Dear Rafik and Marie,
>>
>>
>> Thank you for taking the lead on organizing the process and creating a
>> common workspace for our group to evaluate membership applications.
>>
>>
>> My thoughts about this are that I cannot possibly review 42 applications
>> in a week and maybe not even 2 weeks given my work load.    I suggest that
>> it may make more sense for the work to be divided, each member taking a set
>> of names, doing a predetermined level of diligence (Internet search, check
>> website, etc.), capturing the results in a common file and making a
>> recommendation to the group.   Otherwise, we would be doing redundant
>> work.   It is also my thought that this is an administrative function that
>> should be supported by ICANN staff.  My experience with volunteer
>> organizations in the past is that the organization gathers and organizes
>> the information and then the volunteers  provide their input and
>> expertise.  In this case, our input would be the act of approving the
>> applications based on information packets assembled by ICANN.   While I
>> certainly would like to cooperate and fulfill my obligations as an EC
>> member, I am not in the position to do administrative work.  It is possible
>> to get some dedicated ICANN support for this ongoing work?  Who would we
>> have to contact?
>>
>>
>> Lori
>>
>>
>>
>> *Lori S. Schulman* ? General Counsel
>> P 703-575-5678 ? Lori.Schulman at ascd.org
>> <image001.jpg>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* ec-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:
>> ec-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] *On Behalf Of *marie-laure Lemineur
>> *Sent:* Friday, September 20, 2013 12:55 PM
>>
>> *To:* Rafik Dammak
>> *Cc:* ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [EC-NCSG] NCSG Membership Applications and EC Evaluation
>> Procedures
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Rafik,
>>
>>
>> Uploading the "new excell doc/the only pending applications" does make a
>> lot of sense  for all the reasons you mention. Setting up a deadline
>> (as well as a formal starting date!) would also be a good thing in my
>> opinion. Only I think that having a deadline that would allow us a two
>> weeks time frame instead of just one week would be more realistic. Since we
>> are five people, it would provide more flexibility for each of us to get
>> organized and plan the time needed to review all applications. Maybe the
>> conf call can be arranged towards the end of the deadline, to have an
>> opportunity to share opinions in case there is disagreement over some
>> applications. I don' t know if that was the objective of the conf call you
>> proposed but I would agree with doing it anyway.
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>> Marie-laure
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> Thanks to Marie-Laure for the editing and new format,
>>
>> I am cautious with using excel file and exchanging different versions by
>> email sinceit will be hard to follow with 5 people having to write down
>> their decision. I can upload this new document as google doc(or google
>> drive) and sharing it with all EC members for editing. so we approve some
>> applications quickly without prejudicing others
>>
>> I think that we can go for all pending applications, some of them we have
>> processed and got to get some clarifications from applicants.
>>
>> we can have 1 week to cover those 42 applications, each EC member stating
>> approve/disapprove and giving rationale for the latter after doing doing
>> due digilence for review applicants. having some questions, we can ask
>> applicants for clarification.
>>
>> we don't have a checklist per se, but we have the criteria for
>> eligibility for organisational and individual membership stated in our
>> charter https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Charter
>>
>> having a deadline will help us to go forward. we can also have a confcall
>> if discuss on specific applications and take actions
>>
>> does it make sense?if there is no objection, we can proceed following
>> that.
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>>   Rafik
>>
>>
>> 2013/9/11 marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>
>>
>> Dear Rafik, Robin, Lori and al.,
>>
>>
>> Over these last days I  have started to review the list of pending
>> applications that Rafik kindly uploaded. Rafik answering a question I asked
>> him told me I should review row 1 to 32 ie review 31 applications. I
>> started doing it but realized the following:
>>
>>
>> -the current list uploaded gathers pending applications and already
>> approved applications;
>>
>> - Since Rafik had already worked on the list. I self-volunteered to also
>> contribute and not bother Rafik anymore. This is why I proceeded, in the
>> document that you will find attached,  to separate what is labelled on the
>> original list sent by Rafik as "pending" and what is labelled as "approved
>> applications". They are three taps in the same Excel doc;
>>
>> -As a result of this, you will realize that instead of having 117 rows
>> with mixed application status, now we have  a  list of strictly pending
>> applications from row 1 to row 43 on one list which means that there are
>> only 42 pending applications;
>>
>> -the 61 approved applications have been copied and pasted in the separate
>> list;
>>
>> -Among those 42 applications I am aware of some who have been in the
>> queue for quite some time now;
>>
>>
>>  I am proposing that instead of reviewing 31 applications we might as
>> well review the 42 ie the whole batch. It does not really make sense (in my
>> humble opinion)  to left out 11 applications and it does not make a huge
>> difference either. If we do this round, we might as well want to complete
>> it once for all.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>>
>> Marie-laure
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Marie-Laure,
>>
>>
>> no problem,
>>
>> please review the application from row #2 to row # 30, they are the
>> latest applications we should cover.
>>
>> for colors, they are used for old application we checked previously,
>> maybe Robin can explain better about their meaning.
>>
>>
>> best,
>>
>>
>>   Rafik
>>
>>
>> 2013/9/3 marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>
>>
>> Dear Rafik,
>>
>>
>> Thanks. I will have time to do this starting Wednesday, Thurday and
>> Friday. Could you please explain to me if the colors have a particular
>> meaning. I have not been able to figure it out... sorry :)
>>
>>
>> Merci!
>>
>>
>> Marie-laure
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 5:24 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Robin,
>>
>>
>> sorry for delay, I updated the "pending applications" file, we have 29
>> applications to cover , for this week hopefully and I think that is doable.
>>
>> please check this file for review
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dENsT21PLTFmeW9qZ2pLLWowc3RTbmc&usp=sharing
>> .
>>
>> I will be glad to assist our new EC members regarding the review process
>>
>> In other hand, for a better applications solution, I will be glad to
>> discuss with ICANN staff.
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>>   Rafik
>>
>>
>> 2013/8/28 Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>>
>> Dear All:
>>
>> As you all know, we need an integrated membership database solution to
>> manage the NCSG membership applications, membership rosters, etc. and ICANN
>> hasn't yet provided a solution (although it said it was working on one for
>> all of ICANN, not just NCSG).  So in the meantime, we are using these
>> Google docs spreadsheets to manage the membership data, even though it is
>> rather cumbersome to navigate and far from the best solution.
>>
>> Reminder that the data for incoming NCSG Membership applications is
>> stored in a spreadsheet and available to EC members here:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ane1uzL43HhedDFhOWZOTEVhMzZUYUszVFhpX1JEU1E&usp=sharing
>>
>> The spreadsheet that keeps track of the immediately pending applications,
>> including how each NCSG member votes on a given application is here:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dENsT21PLTFmeW9qZ2pLLWowc3RTbmc&usp=sharing
>>
>> I believe Rafik volunteered to update the immediately above PENDING
>> applications link to reflect the new applications that have come in for
>> evaluation in the last few weeks and that we need to evaluate now.
>>
>> Each NCSG EC member should then evaluate the application against NCSG's
>> membership criteria and noncommercial mission and then we vote on the
>> application's approval in the above link.  Sometimes there are questions or
>> info is not complete so follow-ups are needed with applicants.
>>
>> We can type our vote or comment directly into the PENDING spreadsheet so
>> the discussion is all in one place and publicly available (and applicants
>> can keep track of their application by looking at this link).  We evaluate
>> the data supplied by the applicant in the spreadsheet at 1st link (private)
>> above, but we each vote in the spreadsheet 2nd link (public).   Again, the
>> need for an integrated membership database.....  Thanks very much.
>>
>> Please let me know if you have any questions on this.
>>
>> Best,
>> Robin
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *?Join us at the ASCD Conference on Educational Leadership, November
>> 1?3, 2013, at The Cosmopolitan? in fabulous Las Vegas, Nev. Learn and
>> network with the highest-performing education leaders and best-selling
>> authors of proven leadership resources. Register now at **
>> www.ascd.org/CEL* <http://www.ascd.org/CEL>*.?*
>>
>> This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of
>>
>> the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is
>>
>> confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or
>>
>> have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy,
>> distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the
>> sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any
>>
>> attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free.
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20130920/df58e603/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Sat Sep 21 17:34:20 2013
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 23:34:20 +0900
Subject: [EC-NCSG] NCSG Membership Applications and EC Evaluation
	Procedures
In-Reply-To: <CAD3sNqFzBbvkM=ezNS1DgAzMsqxtPN3rvax1PeuYsCVYbLQK1Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C8858362-2206-411D-92FC-1BA33D5172C2@ipjustice.org>
	<CAH5sThm+ci6jyhAKqAOOWkruiHTkg+oY2SMax-R2uj1huFyTeg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqGng-eDGBVe2Y=74MLGK=CtF_X_D9pbvj-OiwDtwNKBpQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThmMe4RH351Otmc415NGnXJgMFR9LaSDaWPntMo2ND4Eyg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqEO4UZ+ejwtCxs123Woxv+Nh+rg2aPOyTEW=m12jaG4eA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=CKhy5B4Xa6WTJOUtMOYHnha3FcYd6nysNPfsv85Sp0Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqH_dpnfxYQkqFeq5FqZsoGUMpzRjbW_hqgWkxdG0xLydA@mail.gmail.com>
	<07F06E6EBD995844BDC9E2F0714E727A52C3FB67@EX2K10MAILBOX2.ascd.org>
	<CAD3sNqFzBbvkM=ezNS1DgAzMsqxtPN3rvax1PeuYsCVYbLQK1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=5gpkQD=Gavr=1aKAv1f-6hODKmZfR0a6xf9zRyrkwYQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Marie-Laure,

I am quite surprised with was said in last emails and accusations made
there. I am putting some clarification and the context, acknowledging that
you may not be aware about them previously:

- I added the new batch of applications in pending applications file at
google drive open to  all EC members, I indicated them when you asked me
because the confusion about the meaning colors in the file. for all
applications , there is indication of status : approved or pending. there
is no conspiracy or purpose to hide. in fact, you find them easily.
- the pending applications file is used for convenience so we can put our
remarks, questions and votes. the information are got from the applications
file or bucket applications as you named it. this bucket applications file
was already shared and reminded by Robin with EC members in 28th August.
just in the bottom of the email. you can find all information of
applications there.

- the membership management is not optimal indeed. we asked ICANN staff to
build a better system for us and started discussion, but no update from
their side. such system is intended to make the whole process more smooth
and effective , while NCSG keep the ownership of its data.
- you are bringing some old issue like funding already fixed: the funding
issue was settle down in Toronto meeting during EC meeting. you were there
if I recall correctly. I discussed with Klaus  and Alain at the time and
clarified the intent about why we ask for this information. like any issue,
we discussed within EC when needed and agreed on solution like for updating
the format of the application form. in fact, it shows the goodwill and
cooperation to agree on solution and move forward.
- yes I disagreed sometimes with other EC members like Alain and Klaus, I
think that is normal and we discuss till having consensus. I think there is
some misunderstanding, you cannot expect people to agree with you every
time unless you convince them with rationale arguments, or accept
applications just like that. bullying or pushing doesn't work.
- you are mentioning some reasons/comments that let to not approve members
yet, they are not mine. and yes we have disagreement on individual and
organizational applicants and we ask for further information when needed,
Alain. Cintra did that too. I am not sure why you want to single me out.
- Understanding the change within NPOC, EC representatives from NPOC were
replaced several times , which means explaining the process , the agreement
we made previously  etc every time.
- NCSG EC approve application for NCSG, we don't approve for NCUC or NPOC
membership, it is up to constituencies to do that according to their own
charter and members can not belonging to a any particular constituency.

you made some accusations, talked about suspicion, lies, bad faith,
mistrust, you pointed finger in some people and blamed them . you could ask
before for clarification and avoid that, but it looks that you get partial
information from one side only.
we all try to improve the way of working and the process ,even if we are
busy with other tasks,but accusation is not the best achieve  that. we all
are volunteering for NCSG at the end.

Best,

Rafik

2013/9/21 marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>

> Dear Lori and al.
>
> Thank you for your suggestion. You are right, the workload is important,
> but since the membership process is chartered the way it is chartered, I
> would like to make a counter proposal to you Lori, and others. Why don' t
> we give it a try to the two weeks time frame and we see how it goes. If the
> workload is too much, over the conf call we could always decide to extend a
> little bit depending on how we assess the situation then. Does this sounds
> reasonable to all of you? About ICANN staff support, I love the idea but
> Rafik, Robin and Milton could maybe tell us more about this based on their
> experience. Do you see it viable ?
>
> Best,
>
> Marie-laure
>
>
>
> Dear Lori,
>
> Thank you for suggesting alternative solutions. I am going to be
> straightforward with you about the whole membership issue between NPOC and
> NCSG. Unfortunately, experience has showned that it would not be in NPOC's
>  interests to have a split review. Historically, there has been many
> intents to manipulate the pending list applications, many delays and
> rejection specifically of  NPOC applications by non-npoc members who are
> reviewing the applications. Part of the pressure I am putting on Rafik,
> Robin and Milton is  to have more transparency and a more agile mechanism.
> I have noticed that for example, in the last original list sent by Rafik,
> he had asked us to review the first 32 applications and had left out most
> NPOC applications. 90% of the 32 applications were only NCUC and NCSG. I
> hate to have to talk to you about that, this is not my style nor this is
> very professional nevertheless, this is the context we are in and we should
> bear it in mind at all time. I will not trust them until they prove to me I
> can trust them. I am usually the other way round, but in their case there
> has been so much bad faith and so many lies that we need to be extra
> careful.
>
> Part of my goals is to increase NPOC membership from 35 to 50-60 by the
> time my term ends. This has been impossible under Alain leadership despite
> all his efforts and the fight he put, particularly with Rafik. They used to
> invent all sorts of bad excuses to refuse/delay our NPOC applications, as
> you will see when they comment on it. Also what they are doing is giving
> priority to individual members applications  since  NPOC can not admit
> individual members.
>
> Once again, I am not comfortable telling you all this, but I think this
> background information is important to have so that you are  aware of the
> bigger issues. I guess I should have told you that before, but I was
> reluctant to do it for the reasons I already mentioned.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Marie-laure
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman at ascd.org>wrote:
>
>>  Dear Rafik and Marie,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you for taking the lead on organizing the process and creating a
>> common workspace for our group to evaluate membership applications.
>>
>>
>>
>> My thoughts about this are that I cannot possibly review 42 applications
>> in a week and maybe not even 2 weeks given my work load.    I suggest that
>> it may make more sense for the work to be divided, each member taking a set
>> of names, doing a predetermined level of diligence (Internet search, check
>> website, etc.), capturing the results in a common file and making a
>> recommendation to the group.   Otherwise, we would be doing redundant
>> work.   It is also my thought that this is an administrative function that
>> should be supported by ICANN staff.  My experience with volunteer
>> organizations in the past is that the organization gathers and organizes
>> the information and then the volunteers  provide their input and
>> expertise.  In this case, our input would be the act of approving the
>> applications based on information packets assembled by ICANN.   While I
>> certainly would like to cooperate and fulfill my obligations as an EC
>> member, I am not in the position to do administrative work.  It is possible
>> to get some dedicated ICANN support for this ongoing work?  Who would we
>> have to contact?
>>
>>
>>
>> Lori
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Lori S. Schulman* ? General Counsel
>> P 703-575-5678 ? Lori.Schulman at ascd.org
>> [image: Description: cid:image001.png at 01CC81E2.512C46F0]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* ec-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:
>> ec-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] *On Behalf Of *marie-laure Lemineur
>> *Sent:* Friday, September 20, 2013 12:55 PM
>>
>> *To:* Rafik Dammak
>> *Cc:* ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [EC-NCSG] NCSG Membership Applications and EC Evaluation
>> Procedures
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Rafik,
>>
>>
>>
>> Uploading the "new excell doc/the only pending applications" does make a
>> lot of sense  for all the reasons you mention. Setting up a deadline
>> (as well as a formal starting date!) would also be a good thing in my
>> opinion. Only I think that having a deadline that would allow us a two
>> weeks time frame instead of just one week would be more realistic. Since we
>> are five people, it would provide more flexibility for each of us to get
>> organized and plan the time needed to review all applications. Maybe the
>> conf call can be arranged towards the end of the deadline, to have an
>> opportunity to share opinions in case there is disagreement over some
>> applications. I don' t know if that was the objective of the conf call you
>> proposed but I would agree with doing it anyway.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>>
>> Marie-laure
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks to Marie-Laure for the editing and new format,
>>
>> I am cautious with using excel file and exchanging different versions by
>> email sinceit will be hard to follow with 5 people having to write down
>> their decision. I can upload this new document as google doc(or google
>> drive) and sharing it with all EC members for editing. so we approve some
>> applications quickly without prejudicing others
>>
>> I think that we can go for all pending applications, some of them we have
>> processed and got to get some clarifications from applicants.
>>
>> we can have 1 week to cover those 42 applications, each EC member stating
>> approve/disapprove and giving rationale for the latter after doing doing
>> due digilence for review applicants. having some questions, we can ask
>> applicants for clarification.
>>
>> we don't have a checklist per se, but we have the criteria for
>> eligibility for organisational and individual membership stated in our
>> charter https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Charter
>>
>> having a deadline will help us to go forward. we can also have a confcall
>> if discuss on specific applications and take actions
>>
>> does it make sense?if there is no objection, we can proceed following
>> that.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>>   Rafik
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/9/11 marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>
>>
>> Dear Rafik, Robin, Lori and al.,
>>
>>
>>
>> Over these last days I  have started to review the list of pending
>> applications that Rafik kindly uploaded. Rafik answering a question I asked
>> him told me I should review row 1 to 32 ie review 31 applications. I
>> started doing it but realized the following:
>>
>>
>>
>> -the current list uploaded gathers pending applications and already
>> approved applications;
>>
>> - Since Rafik had already worked on the list. I self-volunteered to also
>> contribute and not bother Rafik anymore. This is why I proceeded, in the
>> document that you will find attached,  to separate what is labelled on the
>> original list sent by Rafik as "pending" and what is labelled as "approved
>> applications". They are three taps in the same Excel doc;
>>
>> -As a result of this, you will realize that instead of having 117 rows
>> with mixed application status, now we have  a  list of strictly pending
>> applications from row 1 to row 43 on one list which means that there are
>> only 42 pending applications;
>>
>> -the 61 approved applications have been copied and pasted in the separate
>> list;
>>
>> -Among those 42 applications I am aware of some who have been in the
>> queue for quite some time now;
>>
>>
>>
>>  I am proposing that instead of reviewing 31 applications we might as
>> well review the 42 ie the whole batch. It does not really make sense (in my
>> humble opinion)  to left out 11 applications and it does not make a huge
>> difference either. If we do this round, we might as well want to complete
>> it once for all.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Marie-laure
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Marie-Laure,
>>
>>
>>
>> no problem,
>>
>> please review the application from row #2 to row # 30, they are the
>> latest applications we should cover.
>>
>> for colors, they are used for old application we checked previously,
>> maybe Robin can explain better about their meaning.
>>
>>
>>
>> best,
>>
>>
>>   Rafik
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/9/3 marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>
>>
>> Dear Rafik,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks. I will have time to do this starting Wednesday, Thurday and
>> Friday. Could you please explain to me if the colors have a particular
>> meaning. I have not been able to figure it out... sorry :)
>>
>>
>>
>> Merci!
>>
>>
>>
>> Marie-laure
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 5:24 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Robin,
>>
>>
>>
>> sorry for delay, I updated the "pending applications" file, we have 29
>> applications to cover , for this week hopefully and I think that is doable.
>>
>> please check this file for review
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dENsT21PLTFmeW9qZ2pLLWowc3RTbmc&usp=sharing
>> .
>>
>> I will be glad to assist our new EC members regarding the review process
>>
>> In other hand, for a better applications solution, I will be glad to
>> discuss with ICANN staff.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>>   Rafik
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/8/28 Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>>
>> Dear All:
>>
>> As you all know, we need an integrated membership database solution to
>> manage the NCSG membership applications, membership rosters, etc. and ICANN
>> hasn't yet provided a solution (although it said it was working on one for
>> all of ICANN, not just NCSG).  So in the meantime, we are using these
>> Google docs spreadsheets to manage the membership data, even though it is
>> rather cumbersome to navigate and far from the best solution.
>>
>> Reminder that the data for incoming NCSG Membership applications is
>> stored in a spreadsheet and available to EC members here:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ane1uzL43HhedDFhOWZOTEVhMzZUYUszVFhpX1JEU1E&usp=sharing
>>
>> The spreadsheet that keeps track of the immediately pending applications,
>> including how each NCSG member votes on a given application is here:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dENsT21PLTFmeW9qZ2pLLWowc3RTbmc&usp=sharing
>>
>> I believe Rafik volunteered to update the immediately above PENDING
>> applications link to reflect the new applications that have come in for
>> evaluation in the last few weeks and that we need to evaluate now.
>>
>> Each NCSG EC member should then evaluate the application against NCSG's
>> membership criteria and noncommercial mission and then we vote on the
>> application's approval in the above link.  Sometimes there are questions or
>> info is not complete so follow-ups are needed with applicants.
>>
>> We can type our vote or comment directly into the PENDING spreadsheet so
>> the discussion is all in one place and publicly available (and applicants
>> can keep track of their application by looking at this link).  We evaluate
>> the data supplied by the applicant in the spreadsheet at 1st link (private)
>> above, but we each vote in the spreadsheet 2nd link (public).   Again, the
>> need for an integrated membership database.....  Thanks very much.
>>
>> Please let me know if you have any questions on this.
>>
>> Best,
>> Robin
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *?Join us at the ASCD Conference on Educational Leadership, November
>> 1?3, 2013, at The Cosmopolitan? in fabulous Las Vegas, Nev. Learn and
>> network with the highest-performing education leaders and best-selling
>> authors of proven leadership resources. Register now at **
>> www.ascd.org/CEL* <http://www.ascd.org/CEL>*.?*
>>
>> This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of
>>
>> the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is
>>
>> confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or
>>
>> have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy,
>> distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the
>> sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any
>>
>> attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free.
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20130921/9b2c8bac/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2196 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20130921/9b2c8bac/attachment-0001.jpg>


From mllemineur  Mon Sep 23 18:49:36 2013
From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 09:49:36 -0600
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Membership and evaluation process
Message-ID: <CAD3sNqHOFvHWrz=do44o=kia5eNK=RvkkqN4jae-4ycwGS3_bg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Rafik, Milton, Lori  and Robin,


I wish to apologise  on again if my words have offended any of you. I would
like to suggest that we speak about these membership issues face to face if
this is agreeable to you. We could arrange for an informal meeting or share
a coffee  if those of you who will be there, are willing to do so. If this
is acceptable to you we can agree on where and when exactly.

Best,

Marie-laure
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20130923/bdb2a3c3/attachment.html>


From robin  Tue Sep 24 05:32:38 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 19:32:38 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Fwd: [PC-NCSG] ICANN #48 Meetings Plan - NCSG with ATRT
	in Buenos Aires?
References: <DB7A58BC-D21F-4DE2-8555-11A181F8ECDB@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <E20A41B8-30A6-4EB2-BDA7-A4890A4A566B@ipjustice.org>

Hi Bill,

Thanks for letting me know.  I do not want to be duplicative and the ATRT group is already meeting with constituencies then it might be too much to also meet with NCSG that day.

Thanks again,
Robin


Begin forwarded message:

> From: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] ICANN #48 Meetings Plan - NCSG with ATRT in Buenos Aires?
> Date: September 21, 2013 12:55:06 AM PDT
> To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Cc: NCSG-Policy Policy <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
> 
> Hi Robin
> 
> I can't write to NCSG EC for please forward.
> 
> As they contacted me and asked for a meeting, ATRT is already booked with NCUC for 45 minutes on Constituency Day morning, 11-11:45.  Why not have NPOC do their own with ATRT do discuss intraorganizational matters and we use the NCSG time to drill down on Council policy issues, which is the SG's primary focal point?  I don't know about NPOC's plans, but we don't intend in the NCUC time to get into Council matters, precisely because these are for the SG.
> 
> Best
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Sep 20, 2013, at 10:02 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
> 
>> Folks,
>> 
>> I'm working on the ICANN #48 in Buenos Aires meetings plan and want to schedule some time for NCSG with the ATRT team.  We have the option of them coming to the NCSG mtg on Tuesday afternoon (19 Nov) and talking with us during the NCSG mtg or we can set up a separate dedicated meeting with them on another time during 18-19-20 November in BA.  My preference would be the separate, dedicated, meeting between NCSG and the ATRT because we only have 2-hours on Tuesday to cover lots of different issues and it would be better if we could spend some focused time, at least an hour with ATRT in BA in my view.  However, I don't want to schedule a meeting and have no one show-up because of other commitments during the week, so please let me know if you think a separate mtg between NCSG & ATRT in BA would be useful and if so, would (the 18th) Monday afternoon be a good time to propose for this meeting?
>> 
>> Also, I've started to keep track of the various NCSG meeting details for ICANN #48 in BA here:
>>   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dHN4SURHZUZSSUswQ3BJXzl4ZWUzNXc#gid=0
>> 
>> Thanks much,
>> Robin
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20130923/96ced833/attachment.html>


From robin  Wed Sep 25 01:29:55 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 15:29:55 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Mandatory Candidate Statements for NCSG Elections
Message-ID: <E594FE3B-5625-496F-A53F-F1B3577ABA37@ipjustice.org>

Dear NCSG Election Candidates:

I'm sending this reminder to all the candidates in the upcoming NCSG Annual Election to please provide a Candidate Statement (details Below) to the NCSG mailing list as per the NCSG Charter before Thursday 26 September 2013 EOB.

Also, ICANN is organizing an orientation session that incoming GNSO Councilors will be invited to attend on 22 November 2013 in Buenos Aires, so keep that in mind as you make your travel plans for BA.

Thanks,
Robin
Candidate Statement Should Include:

Name, declared region of residence, gender and employment;
Any conflicts of interest;
Reasons for willingness to take on the tasks of the particular position;
Qualifications for the position; and
Statement of availability for the time the position requires.
The nominee?s statement may also include any other information that the candidate believes is relevant. 

NCSG Election Schedule:
  Sept. 10 : Open Nominations for Candidates
  Sept. 24 : Close Nominations for Candidates (made & accepted)
  Sept. 26 : Candidates Make Public Statement (EOB)
  Oct. 1 : Begin Voting
  Oct. 14 : End Voting
  Oct. 17 : Announce Election Results
  Nov. 22 : Term Begins

NCSG 2013 Annual Election Webpage:
 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/2013+NCSG+Annual+Election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20130924/5a01c11d/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Wed Sep 25 16:10:55 2013
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 22:10:55 +0900
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Membership and evaluation process
In-Reply-To: <CAD3sNqHOFvHWrz=do44o=kia5eNK=RvkkqN4jae-4ycwGS3_bg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD3sNqHOFvHWrz=do44o=kia5eNK=RvkkqN4jae-4ycwGS3_bg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkOYs8Dw4hWxpFL_6iu7WVnnVNz89zojTqAH=MY8UJgcA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Marie-Laure,

thanks for the suggestion,
for meeting , we will have one in BA and I think Robin already planned that
the schedule. is it what you have in mind?

Best,

Rafik


2013/9/24 marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>

> Dear Rafik, Milton, Lori  and Robin,
>
>
> I wish to apologise  on again if my words have offended any of you. I
> would like to suggest that we speak about these membership issues face to
> face if this is agreeable to you. We could arrange for an informal meeting
> or share a coffee  if those of you who will be there, are willing to do so.
> If this is acceptable to you we can agree on where and when exactly.
>
> Best,
>
> Marie-laure
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20130925/dc4b2e92/attachment.html>


From mllemineur  Thu Sep 26 18:45:36 2013
From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:45:36 -0600
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Membership and evaluation process
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkOYs8Dw4hWxpFL_6iu7WVnnVNz89zojTqAH=MY8UJgcA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD3sNqHOFvHWrz=do44o=kia5eNK=RvkkqN4jae-4ycwGS3_bg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThkOYs8Dw4hWxpFL_6iu7WVnnVNz89zojTqAH=MY8UJgcA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD3sNqEUbVdqvy0J7SncHWgoSqKFFSfucKsQbabkY-G3-w+BLw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Rafik,

I was thinking of an informal meeting between you and me (and whoever from
the membership committee will be there) in addition to the formal meeting
that Robin mentions in the meeting plan. An informal gathering. If you?d
like, we could grab a quick lunch on the Sunday or any other day we can
coincide and its suits you.

best,

mll


On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Marie-Laure,
>
> thanks for the suggestion,
> for meeting , we will have one in BA and I think Robin already planned
> that the schedule. is it what you have in mind?
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
> 2013/9/24 marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>
>
>> Dear Rafik, Milton, Lori  and Robin,
>>
>>
>> I wish to apologise  on again if my words have offended any of you. I
>> would like to suggest that we speak about these membership issues face to
>> face if this is agreeable to you. We could arrange for an informal meeting
>> or share a coffee  if those of you who will be there, are willing to do so.
>> If this is acceptable to you we can agree on where and when exactly.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Marie-laure
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20130926/c5c63307/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Sun Sep 29 12:37:49 2013
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 18:37:49 +0900
Subject: [EC-NCSG] NCSG Membership Applications and EC Evaluation
	Procedures
In-Reply-To: <CAD3sNqH_dpnfxYQkqFeq5FqZsoGUMpzRjbW_hqgWkxdG0xLydA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C8858362-2206-411D-92FC-1BA33D5172C2@ipjustice.org>
	<CAH5sThm+ci6jyhAKqAOOWkruiHTkg+oY2SMax-R2uj1huFyTeg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqGng-eDGBVe2Y=74MLGK=CtF_X_D9pbvj-OiwDtwNKBpQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThmMe4RH351Otmc415NGnXJgMFR9LaSDaWPntMo2ND4Eyg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqEO4UZ+ejwtCxs123Woxv+Nh+rg2aPOyTEW=m12jaG4eA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=CKhy5B4Xa6WTJOUtMOYHnha3FcYd6nysNPfsv85Sp0Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqH_dpnfxYQkqFeq5FqZsoGUMpzRjbW_hqgWkxdG0xLydA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmXKudofUqAL6SG5MmR=dOuk2Hs++EeFK4cOvcFPuvfQg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I see no objections to the tweaked approached: splitting the list for
clarity, 2 week of evaluation by all EC members starting from monday 30th
Sept (you can start earlier of course!), planning possible confcall to go
through contentious applications if needed.
I added sheets sent by Marie-laure to the current shared file to avoid a
versioning nightmare and we should so check the sheet called "pending" and
put vote there
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dENsT21PLTFmeW9qZ2pLLWowc3RTbmc&usp=sharing


Best,

Rafik

2013/9/21 marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>

> Dear Rafik,
>
> Uploading the "new excell doc/the only pending applications" does make a
> lot of sense  for all the reasons you mention. Setting up a deadline
> (as well as a formal starting date!) would also be a good thing in my
> opinion. Only I think that having a deadline that would allow us a two
> weeks time frame instead of just one week would be more realistic. Since we
> are five people, it would provide more flexibility for each of us to get
> organized and plan the time needed to review all applications. Maybe the
> conf call can be arranged towards the end of the deadline, to have an
> opportunity to share opinions in case there is disagreement over some
> applications. I don' t know if that was the objective of the conf call you
> proposed but I would agree with doing it anyway.
>
> Best,
>
> Marie-laure
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks to Marie-Laure for the editing and new format,
>> I am cautious with using excel file and exchanging different versions by
>> email sinceit will be hard to follow with 5 people having to write down
>> their decision. I can upload this new document as google doc(or google
>> drive) and sharing it with all EC members for editing. so we approve some
>> applications quickly without prejudicing others
>> I think that we can go for all pending applications, some of them we have
>> processed and got to get some clarifications from applicants.
>> we can have 1 week to cover those 42 applications, each EC member stating
>> approve/disapprove and giving rationale for the latter after doing doing
>> due digilence for review applicants. having some questions, we can ask
>> applicants for clarification.
>> we don't have a checklist per se, but we have the criteria for
>> eligibility for organisational and individual membership stated in our
>> charter https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Charter
>> having a deadline will help us to go forward. we can also have a confcall
>> if discuss on specific applications and take actions
>> does it make sense?if there is no objection, we can proceed following
>> that.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>> 2013/9/11 marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>
>>
>>> Dear Rafik, Robin, Lori and al.,
>>>
>>> Over these last days I  have started to review the list of pending
>>> applications that Rafik kindly uploaded. Rafik answering a question I asked
>>> him told me I should review row 1 to 32 ie review 31 applications. I
>>> started doing it but realized the following:
>>>
>>> -the current list uploaded gathers pending applications and already
>>> approved applications;
>>> - Since Rafik had already worked on the list. I self-volunteered to also
>>> contribute and not bother Rafik anymore. This is why I proceeded, in the
>>> document that you will find attached,  to separate what is labelled on the
>>> original list sent by Rafik as "pending" and what is labelled as "approved
>>> applications". They are three taps in the same Excel doc;
>>> -As a result of this, you will realize that instead of having 117 rows
>>> with mixed application status, now we have  a  list of strictly pending
>>> applications from row 1 to row 43 on one list which means that there are
>>> only 42 pending applications;
>>> -the 61 approved applications have been copied and pasted in the
>>> separate list;
>>> -Among those 42 applications I am aware of some who have been in the
>>> queue for quite some time now;
>>>
>>>  I am proposing that instead of reviewing 31 applications we might as
>>> well review the 42 ie the whole batch. It does not really make sense (in my
>>> humble opinion)  to left out 11 applications and it does not make a huge
>>> difference either. If we do this round, we might as well want to complete
>>> it once for all.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Marie-laure
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Marie-Laure,
>>>>
>>>> no problem,
>>>> please review the application from row #2 to row # 30, they are the
>>>> latest applications we should cover.
>>>> for colors, they are used for old application we checked previously,
>>>> maybe Robin can explain better about their meaning.
>>>>
>>>> best,
>>>>
>>>>  Rafik
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2013/9/3 marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Rafik,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks. I will have time to do this starting Wednesday, Thurday and
>>>>> Friday. Could you please explain to me if the colors have a particular
>>>>> meaning. I have not been able to figure it out... sorry :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Merci!
>>>>>
>>>>> Marie-laure
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 5:24 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Robin,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> sorry for delay, I updated the "pending applications" file, we have
>>>>>> 29 applications to cover , for this week hopefully and I think that is
>>>>>> doable.
>>>>>> please check this file for review
>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dENsT21PLTFmeW9qZ2pLLWowc3RTbmc&usp=sharing
>>>>>> .
>>>>>> I will be glad to assist our new EC members regarding the review
>>>>>> process
>>>>>> In other hand, for a better applications solution, I will be glad to
>>>>>> discuss with ICANN staff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Rafik
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2013/8/28 Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear All:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As you all know, we need an integrated membership database solution
>>>>>>> to manage the NCSG membership applications, membership rosters, etc. and
>>>>>>> ICANN hasn't yet provided a solution (although it said it was working on
>>>>>>> one for all of ICANN, not just NCSG).  So in the meantime, we are using
>>>>>>> these Google docs spreadsheets to manage the membership data, even though
>>>>>>> it is rather cumbersome to navigate and far from the best solution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Reminder that the data for incoming NCSG Membership applications is
>>>>>>> stored in a spreadsheet and available to EC members here:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ane1uzL43HhedDFhOWZOTEVhMzZUYUszVFhpX1JEU1E&usp=sharing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The spreadsheet that keeps track of the immediately pending
>>>>>>> applications, including how each NCSG member votes on a given application
>>>>>>> is here:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dENsT21PLTFmeW9qZ2pLLWowc3RTbmc&usp=sharing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I believe Rafik volunteered to update the immediately above PENDING
>>>>>>> applications link to reflect the new applications that have come in for
>>>>>>> evaluation in the last few weeks and that we need to evaluate now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Each NCSG EC member should then evaluate the application against
>>>>>>> NCSG's membership criteria and noncommercial mission and then we vote on
>>>>>>> the application's approval in the above link.  Sometimes there are
>>>>>>> questions or info is not complete so follow-ups are needed with applicants.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We can type our vote or comment directly into the PENDING
>>>>>>> spreadsheet so the discussion is all in one place and publicly available
>>>>>>> (and applicants can keep track of their application by looking at this
>>>>>>> link).  We evaluate the data supplied by the applicant in the spreadsheet
>>>>>>> at 1st link (private) above, but we each vote in the spreadsheet 2nd link
>>>>>>> (public).   Again, the need for an integrated membership database.....
>>>>>>>  Thanks very much.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please let me know if you have any questions on this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20130929/319f07ed/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Sun Sep 29 12:40:25 2013
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 18:40:25 +0900
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Membership and evaluation process
In-Reply-To: <CAD3sNqEUbVdqvy0J7SncHWgoSqKFFSfucKsQbabkY-G3-w+BLw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD3sNqHOFvHWrz=do44o=kia5eNK=RvkkqN4jae-4ycwGS3_bg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThkOYs8Dw4hWxpFL_6iu7WVnnVNz89zojTqAH=MY8UJgcA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqEUbVdqvy0J7SncHWgoSqKFFSfucKsQbabkY-G3-w+BLw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=x+wkSE8QL9joe67d+ZJKPZ8jY0QStgCykoSUzmABQag@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Marie-laure,

I think we can figure out in BA, I am still struggling to settle out the
travel there not even sure about arrival date.
the other opportunity is to meet in Bali.

Best,

Rafik

2013/9/27 marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>

> Dear Rafik,
>
> I was thinking of an informal meeting between you and me (and whoever from
> the membership committee will be there) in addition to the formal meeting
> that Robin mentions in the meeting plan. An informal gathering. If you?d
> like, we could grab a quick lunch on the Sunday or any other day we can
> coincide and its suits you.
>
> best,
>
> mll
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi Marie-Laure,
>>
>> thanks for the suggestion,
>> for meeting , we will have one in BA and I think Robin already planned
>> that the schedule. is it what you have in mind?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>> 2013/9/24 marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>
>>
>>>  Dear Rafik, Milton, Lori  and Robin,
>>>
>>>
>>> I wish to apologise  on again if my words have offended any of you. I
>>> would like to suggest that we speak about these membership issues face to
>>> face if this is agreeable to you. We could arrange for an informal meeting
>>> or share a coffee  if those of you who will be there, are willing to do so.
>>> If this is acceptable to you we can agree on where and when exactly.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Marie-laure
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20130929/f508ad0e/attachment-0001.html>


From mllemineur  Mon Sep 30 17:30:00 2013
From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 08:30:00 -0600
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Membership and evaluation process
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=x+wkSE8QL9joe67d+ZJKPZ8jY0QStgCykoSUzmABQag@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD3sNqHOFvHWrz=do44o=kia5eNK=RvkkqN4jae-4ycwGS3_bg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThkOYs8Dw4hWxpFL_6iu7WVnnVNz89zojTqAH=MY8UJgcA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqEUbVdqvy0J7SncHWgoSqKFFSfucKsQbabkY-G3-w+BLw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=x+wkSE8QL9joe67d+ZJKPZ8jY0QStgCykoSUzmABQag@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD3sNqHO_tZKd=_886CXg4Wxgumtcuhr4hqKcTs3vk40GdGCHA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I ignored you were going to Bali! Of course, much better than. We can speak
once in Bali with less running around.


Thanks.

mll


On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 3:40 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Marie-laure,
>
> I think we can figure out in BA, I am still struggling to settle out the
> travel there not even sure about arrival date.
> the other opportunity is to meet in Bali.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2013/9/27 marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>
>
>> Dear Rafik,
>>
>> I was thinking of an informal meeting between you and me (and whoever
>> from the membership committee will be there) in addition to the formal
>> meeting that Robin mentions in the meeting plan. An informal gathering. If
>> you?d like, we could grab a quick lunch on the Sunday or any other day we
>> can coincide and its suits you.
>>
>> best,
>>
>> mll
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Marie-Laure,
>>>
>>> thanks for the suggestion,
>>> for meeting , we will have one in BA and I think Robin already planned
>>> that the schedule. is it what you have in mind?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/9/24 marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>
>>>
>>>>  Dear Rafik, Milton, Lori  and Robin,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wish to apologise  on again if my words have offended any of you. I
>>>> would like to suggest that we speak about these membership issues face to
>>>> face if this is agreeable to you. We could arrange for an informal meeting
>>>> or share a coffee  if those of you who will be there, are willing to do so.
>>>> If this is acceptable to you we can agree on where and when exactly.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Marie-laure
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20130930/3d232417/attachment.html>


From mllemineur  Mon Sep 30 17:31:14 2013
From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 08:31:14 -0600
Subject: [EC-NCSG] NCSG Membership Applications and EC Evaluation
	Procedures
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmXKudofUqAL6SG5MmR=dOuk2Hs++EeFK4cOvcFPuvfQg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C8858362-2206-411D-92FC-1BA33D5172C2@ipjustice.org>
	<CAH5sThm+ci6jyhAKqAOOWkruiHTkg+oY2SMax-R2uj1huFyTeg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqGng-eDGBVe2Y=74MLGK=CtF_X_D9pbvj-OiwDtwNKBpQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThmMe4RH351Otmc415NGnXJgMFR9LaSDaWPntMo2ND4Eyg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqEO4UZ+ejwtCxs123Woxv+Nh+rg2aPOyTEW=m12jaG4eA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=CKhy5B4Xa6WTJOUtMOYHnha3FcYd6nysNPfsv85Sp0Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqH_dpnfxYQkqFeq5FqZsoGUMpzRjbW_hqgWkxdG0xLydA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThmXKudofUqAL6SG5MmR=dOuk2Hs++EeFK4cOvcFPuvfQg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD3sNqHEFJQDwJLLO5Y29zqDAtghb1u-wZ_44hSaaXe2RP_MFA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

Noted. Thanks.

best,

mll


On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 3:37 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I see no objections to the tweaked approached: splitting the list for
> clarity, 2 week of evaluation by all EC members starting from monday 30th
> Sept (you can start earlier of course!), planning possible confcall to go
> through contentious applications if needed.
> I added sheets sent by Marie-laure to the current shared file to avoid a
> versioning nightmare and we should so check the sheet called "pending" and
> put vote there
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dENsT21PLTFmeW9qZ2pLLWowc3RTbmc&usp=sharing
>
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2013/9/21 marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>
>
>> Dear Rafik,
>>
>> Uploading the "new excell doc/the only pending applications" does make a
>> lot of sense  for all the reasons you mention. Setting up a deadline
>> (as well as a formal starting date!) would also be a good thing in my
>> opinion. Only I think that having a deadline that would allow us a two
>> weeks time frame instead of just one week would be more realistic. Since we
>> are five people, it would provide more flexibility for each of us to get
>> organized and plan the time needed to review all applications. Maybe the
>> conf call can be arranged towards the end of the deadline, to have an
>> opportunity to share opinions in case there is disagreement over some
>> applications. I don' t know if that was the objective of the conf call you
>> proposed but I would agree with doing it anyway.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Marie-laure
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Thanks to Marie-Laure for the editing and new format,
>>> I am cautious with using excel file and exchanging different versions by
>>> email sinceit will be hard to follow with 5 people having to write down
>>> their decision. I can upload this new document as google doc(or google
>>> drive) and sharing it with all EC members for editing. so we approve some
>>> applications quickly without prejudicing others
>>> I think that we can go for all pending applications, some of them we
>>> have processed and got to get some clarifications from applicants.
>>> we can have 1 week to cover those 42 applications, each EC member
>>> stating approve/disapprove and giving rationale for the latter after doing
>>> doing due digilence for review applicants. having some questions, we can
>>> ask applicants for clarification.
>>> we don't have a checklist per se, but we have the criteria for
>>> eligibility for organisational and individual membership stated in our
>>> charter https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Charter
>>> having a deadline will help us to go forward. we can also have a
>>> confcall if discuss on specific applications and take actions
>>> does it make sense?if there is no objection, we can proceed following
>>> that.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/9/11 marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>
>>>
>>>> Dear Rafik, Robin, Lori and al.,
>>>>
>>>> Over these last days I  have started to review the list of pending
>>>> applications that Rafik kindly uploaded. Rafik answering a question I asked
>>>> him told me I should review row 1 to 32 ie review 31 applications. I
>>>> started doing it but realized the following:
>>>>
>>>> -the current list uploaded gathers pending applications and already
>>>> approved applications;
>>>> - Since Rafik had already worked on the list. I self-volunteered to
>>>> also contribute and not bother Rafik anymore. This is why I proceeded, in
>>>> the document that you will find attached,  to separate what is labelled on
>>>> the original list sent by Rafik as "pending" and what is labelled as
>>>> "approved applications". They are three taps in the same Excel doc;
>>>> -As a result of this, you will realize that instead of having 117 rows
>>>> with mixed application status, now we have  a  list of strictly pending
>>>> applications from row 1 to row 43 on one list which means that there are
>>>> only 42 pending applications;
>>>> -the 61 approved applications have been copied and pasted in the
>>>> separate list;
>>>> -Among those 42 applications I am aware of some who have been in the
>>>> queue for quite some time now;
>>>>
>>>>  I am proposing that instead of reviewing 31 applications we might as
>>>> well review the 42 ie the whole batch. It does not really make sense (in my
>>>> humble opinion)  to left out 11 applications and it does not make a huge
>>>> difference either. If we do this round, we might as well want to complete
>>>> it once for all.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Marie-laure
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Marie-Laure,
>>>>>
>>>>> no problem,
>>>>> please review the application from row #2 to row # 30, they are the
>>>>> latest applications we should cover.
>>>>> for colors, they are used for old application we checked previously,
>>>>> maybe Robin can explain better about their meaning.
>>>>>
>>>>> best,
>>>>>
>>>>>  Rafik
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2013/9/3 marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Rafik,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks. I will have time to do this starting Wednesday, Thurday and
>>>>>> Friday. Could you please explain to me if the colors have a particular
>>>>>> meaning. I have not been able to figure it out... sorry :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Merci!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Marie-laure
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 5:24 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Robin,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sorry for delay, I updated the "pending applications" file, we have
>>>>>>> 29 applications to cover , for this week hopefully and I think that is
>>>>>>> doable.
>>>>>>> please check this file for review
>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dENsT21PLTFmeW9qZ2pLLWowc3RTbmc&usp=sharing
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>> I will be glad to assist our new EC members regarding the review
>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>> In other hand, for a better applications solution, I will be glad to
>>>>>>> discuss with ICANN staff.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Rafik
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2013/8/28 Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear All:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As you all know, we need an integrated membership database solution
>>>>>>>> to manage the NCSG membership applications, membership rosters, etc. and
>>>>>>>> ICANN hasn't yet provided a solution (although it said it was working on
>>>>>>>> one for all of ICANN, not just NCSG).  So in the meantime, we are using
>>>>>>>> these Google docs spreadsheets to manage the membership data, even though
>>>>>>>> it is rather cumbersome to navigate and far from the best solution.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Reminder that the data for incoming NCSG Membership applications is
>>>>>>>> stored in a spreadsheet and available to EC members here:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ane1uzL43HhedDFhOWZOTEVhMzZUYUszVFhpX1JEU1E&usp=sharing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The spreadsheet that keeps track of the immediately pending
>>>>>>>> applications, including how each NCSG member votes on a given application
>>>>>>>> is here:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dENsT21PLTFmeW9qZ2pLLWowc3RTbmc&usp=sharing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I believe Rafik volunteered to update the immediately above PENDING
>>>>>>>> applications link to reflect the new applications that have come in for
>>>>>>>> evaluation in the last few weeks and that we need to evaluate now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Each NCSG EC member should then evaluate the application against
>>>>>>>> NCSG's membership criteria and noncommercial mission and then we vote on
>>>>>>>> the application's approval in the above link.  Sometimes there are
>>>>>>>> questions or info is not complete so follow-ups are needed with applicants.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We can type our vote or comment directly into the PENDING
>>>>>>>> spreadsheet so the discussion is all in one place and publicly available
>>>>>>>> (and applicants can keep track of their application by looking at this
>>>>>>>> link).  We evaluate the data supplied by the applicant in the spreadsheet
>>>>>>>> at 1st link (private) above, but we each vote in the spreadsheet 2nd link
>>>>>>>> (public).   Again, the need for an integrated membership database.....
>>>>>>>>  Thanks very much.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please let me know if you have any questions on this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20130930/e86c790a/attachment-0001.html>