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

[Rafik Dammak]

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>