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

Fri Sep 20 19:54:33 EEST 2013

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>