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

[marie-laure Lemineur]

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>