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

Mon Sep 30 17:31:14 EEST 2013

Hi,

Noted. Thanks.

best,

mll

On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 3:37 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I see no objections to the tweaked approached: splitting the list for
> clarity, 2 week of evaluation by all EC members starting from monday 30th
> Sept (you can start earlier of course!), planning possible confcall to go
> through contentious applications if needed.
> I added sheets sent by Marie-laure to the current shared file to avoid a
> versioning nightmare and we should so check the sheet called "pending" and
> put vote there
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dENsT21PLTFmeW9qZ2pLLWowc3RTbmc&usp=sharing
>
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2013/9/21 marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>
>
>> 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/20130930/e86c790a/attachment-0001.html>