[EC-NCSG] NCSG Membership Applications and EC Evaluation Procedures
Lori Schulman
lori.schulman
Fri Sep 20 20:03:47 EEST 2013
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>
More information about the NCSG-EC
mailing list