[EC-NCSG] NCSG Membership Applications and EC Evaluation Procedures

[Rafik Dammak]

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>