[NCSG-EC] Fwd: ACTION NEEDED: Work Stream 2 Implementation
Pedro de Perdigão Lana
pedrodeperdigaolana at gmail.com
Mon Dec 8 21:33:56 EET 2025
Hi Rafik!
Sorry for the delayed answer - yes I can! As a starter:
Rec 06.1.3 SO/AC/Groups should document their procedures for non-members to
challenge decisions regarding their eligibility to become a member.
*Comment: This can be added in the NCSG Operating Procedures review, and it
is relatively easy to do.*
Rec 06.1.4 SO/AC/Groups should document unwritten procedures and customs
that have been developed in the course of practice, and make them part of
their procedural operation documents, charters, and/or bylaws.
*Comment: This is a hard one - we actually do that when we update the
Operating Procedures, so I believe we can say this is complete after
reaching out to previous EC members about non-written practices, adding the
ones that we think are relevant to the Operating Procedures, then mark as
complete.*
Rec 06.1.5 Each year, SO/AC/Groups should publish a brief report on what
they have done during the prior year to improve accountability,
transparency, and participation, describe where they might have fallen
short, and any plans for future improvements.
*Comment: We started to do this at the NCUC EC. We can do something similar
here, a simplified **report that is updated recurrently with what the EC
members are doing or following. It doesn't encompass all NCSG activities,
but will encompass a lot of them*
Rec 06.3.3 Where membership must be applied for, there should be a process
of appeal when application for membership is rejected.
*Comment: Same as Rec 06.1.3*
Rec 06.4.3 Each SO/AC/Group should create a committee (of appropriate size)
to manage outreach programs to attract additional eligible members,
particularly from parts of their targeted community that may not be
adequately participating.
*Comment: I don't think creating a new one is really necessary. I believe
this should be a task of EC members, and, in our case, mostly from the NCUC
and NPOC EC, and we already have this in our governance documents. I would
mark this is as complete*
Rec 06.4.4 Outreach objectives and potential activities should be mentioned
in SO/AC/Group bylaws, charter, or procedures.
*Comment: We already have this at the beginning of our Charter. Already
complete.*
Rec 06.4.5 Each SO/AC/Group should have a strategy for outreach to parts of
their targeted community that may not be significantly participating at the
time, while also seeking diversity within membership.
*Comment: See comment 06.4.3.*
Rec 06.5.1 Each SO/AC/Group should review its policies and procedures at
regular intervals and make changes to operational procedures and charter as
indicated by the review.
*Comment: We could add this to the operating procedures, but I think the
best place for it would be the charter. And I am not sure if changing the
charter because of this (it is really hard to to this change) would be a
good idea.*
Rec 06.5.2 Members of SO/AC/Groups should be involved in reviews of
policies and procedures and should approve any revisions.
*Comment: Already complete for the charter. We, however, do not have any
disposition about it in the Operating Procedures. Maybe adding one? (It
shouldn't be as complex as one of the NCUC Operating Procedures; however,
one public consultation for members to give their input + another
simplified public consultation to get feedback on the final version is more
than enough)*
Rec 06.5.3 Internal reviews of SO/AC/Group policies and procedures should
not be prolonged for more than one year, and temporary measures should be
considered if the review extends longer.
*Comment: We don't have any rules limiting the period of review. Maybe
adding something to the Operating Procedures? I don't believe this is
deeply necessary; however, in practice, we rarely will prolong the process
for more than one year because that would mean a change in the EC and a
possibility of restarting the whole process.*
@Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> , shall we use the doc Jean created
before (that Google Sheets file) for continuing the OP review? If yes, we
can check who from the new EC would like to join us (we will select the new
NCUC reps to the EC now, and I think they can already be invited as a
transition period, since the new NPOC reps are already with us) and start
this ASAP.
Cordially,
*Pedro de Perdigão Lana*
Lawyer <https://www.nic.br/>, GEDAI/UFPR <https://www.gedai.com.br/>
Researcher
PhD Candidate (UFPR), LLM in Business Law (UCoimbra)
Coordination/Board/EC @ ISOC Brazil <https://www.isoc.org.br/>, NCUC
<https://www.ncuc.org/> & NCSG
<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Home>(ICANN) and CC
Brazil <https://br.creativecommons.net/>.
This message is restricted to the sender and recipient(s). If received by
mistake, please reply informing it.
Em sex., 5 de dez. de 2025 às 03:22, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
escreveu:
> Hi all,
>
> ICANN staff reached me again to remind me about those recommendations and
> follow-up. I responded that either they are planned for implementation or
> internal discussion and they can change status in their status to complete.
> We discussed previously having those as part of actions in addition to
> operation procedures review including also those about the election
> process. I know we are in the middle of EC change but there should be some
> continuity and we will try to share with membership for input.
>
> @Pedro de Perdigão Lana <pedrodeperdigaolana at gmail.com> I know you are
> keen to work on this, can you kick off separate discussion/doc for OP
> review including those recommendations when relevant and also about
> election.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
>
> Le lun. 11 août 2025 à 07:33, Pedro de Perdigão Lana <
> pedrodeperdigaolana at gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>> Hi EC,
>>
>>
>> - 6.1.3: SO/AC/Groups should document their procedures for
>> non-members to challenge decisions regarding their eligibility to become a
>> member:
>> - We don't have an appeal option. Maybe it would be interesting to
>> think of one.
>> - 6.1.4: SO/AC/Groups should document unwritten procedures and
>> customs that have been developed in the course of practice, and make them
>> part of their procedural operation documents, charters, and/or bylaws:
>> - Our Operating Procedures are kind of this, but probably we need
>> a more in-depth analysis if other practices that are not written down
>> remain.
>> - 6.1.5: Each year, SO/AC/Groups should publish a brief report on
>> what they have done during the prior year to improve accountability,
>> transparency, and participation, describe where they might have fallen
>> short, and any plans for future improvements.
>> - We don't have a requirement like this, and we need to do this
>> urgently, making this an obligation, especially to EC members.
>> - 6.3.3: Where membership must be applied for, there should be a
>> process of appeal when application for membership is rejected.
>> - See reply to 6.1.3.
>> - 6.4.3: Each SO/AC/Group should create a committee (of appropriate
>> size) to manage outreach programs to attract additional eligible members,
>> particularly from parts of their targeted community that may not be
>> adequately participating.
>> - This would be important to do, but we do not have enough
>> manpower to do it while we remain with the other issues (such as the lack
>> of engagement and dedication even within the leadership)
>> - 6.4.4: Outreach objectives and potential activities should be
>> mentioned in SO/AC/Group bylaws, charter, or procedures.
>> - We kind of already have this (see NCSG Charter, 2.2.10), but
>> very superficial. NCUC already has it more detailed, I don't know what the
>> situation is in NPOC. I think that, reading the SG and C documentation
>> together, we already have this covered.
>> - 6.4.5: Each SO/AC/Group should have a strategy for outreach to
>> parts of their targeted community that may not be significantly
>> participating at the time, while also seeking diversity within membership.
>> - See previous comment. I think we already have it solved, at
>> least "on paper".
>> - 6.5.1: Each SO/AC/Group should review its policies and procedures
>> at regular intervals and make changes to operational procedures and charter
>> as indicated by the review.
>> - Agree, we should have one for the OP at least. We are trying to
>> review the NCSG Operating Procedures, but not enough time available. NCUC
>> already has an obligation like this for its OP, although it wasn't being
>> followed until we noticed it in this current term.
>> - 6.5.2: Members of SO/AC/Groups should be involved in reviews of
>> policies and procedures and should approve any revisions.
>> - Agree. We already have this for the charter, but not for the OP.
>> However, I think a dialogue between the EC and the community is the best
>> way to go, instead of just a community vote (for the charter, however, a
>> community vote as the final decision seems to be the correct way to go).
>> - 6.5.3: Internal reviews of SO/AC/Group policies and procedures
>> should not be prolonged for more than one year, and temporary measures
>> should be considered if the review extends longer.
>> - We may need to add this limitation to the Operating Procedures.
>> Not sure if I agree with this for the charter, because, with the
>> interaction with the ICANN Board, this could take more than a year.
>>
>>
>> Cordially,
>>
>> *Pedro de Perdigão Lana*
>> Lawyer <https://www.nic.br/>, GEDAI/UFPR <https://www.gedai.com.br/>
>> Researcher
>> PhD Candidate (UFPR), LLM in Business Law (UCoimbra)
>> Coordination/Board/EC @ ISOC Brazil <https://www.isoc.org.br/>, NCUC
>> <https://www.ncuc.org/> & NCSG
>> <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Home>(ICANN) and CC
>> Brazil <https://br.creativecommons.net/>.
>> This message is restricted to the sender and recipient(s). If received by
>> mistake, please reply informing it.
>>
>>
>> Em ter., 5 de ago. de 2025 às 04:39, Rafik Dammak via NCSG-EC <
>> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> escreveu:
>>
>>> hi all,
>>>
>>> We got this from ICANN org with regard to implementation of workstream 2
>>> implementation for recommendation #6 . I believe we responded to this a
>>> while ago, in the previous EC , @Andrea Glandon
>>> <andrea.glandon at icann.org> can you please confirm what was done and
>>> covered previously on the matter.
>>> We have to review the spreadsheet and make a decision, possibly a topic
>>> for the next EC meeting while we should review those items beforehand. any
>>> agreed item in the recommendation means we have to implement that with
>>> relevant procedure.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Rafik,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Implementation on Work Stream 2 Recommendation 6 was addressed to all
>>> ICANN Community groups, and implementation work is still ongoing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is important to note that recommendation 6 are good practice
>>> recommendations, so they are not mandatory.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If your group chooses not to implement any part of the recommendation,
>>> please note "Won't be Implemented" in column C of your group’s inventory so
>>> that we may consider the work complete.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> WS2 inventory:
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xxPZjIjrjLBiKjcgWKbhhxWhbsBdcRudCqRDl4W5UlY/edit?gid=0#gid=0
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The following recommendations require an action or decision:
>>>
>>> - 6.1.3
>>> - 6.1.4
>>> - 6.1.5
>>> - 6.3.3
>>> - 6.4.3
>>> - 6.4.4
>>> - 6.4.5
>>> - 6.5.1
>>> - 6.5.2
>>> - 6.5.3
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> More information on WS2 can be found here:
>>> https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/TxwIBg
>>>
>>> SO/AC Accountability sub-group Final Report and Recommendations:
>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-acct-ws2-annex-6-soac-final-recs-27mar18-en.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please reach out if you would like to schedule a call to discuss this
>>> further.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for your time.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Nathalie and Devan
>>>
>>> On behalf of the team supporting WS2 community implementation efforts
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-EC mailing list
>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/attachments/20251208/348adf9b/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the NCSG-EC
mailing list