[NCUC-EC] [TIME SENSITIVE] Fwd: WS2 Mapping Inventory and Next Steps for the NCUC

Sat Oct 2 01:28:47 CEST 2021

Thank you Olga and Benjamin

For the others, please provide your input as well by the deadline :) thank
you

Have a nice day

On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 10:58 PM Benjamin Akinmoyeje <benakin at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Raphael,
>
> Kindly find my responses below.
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 11:15 AM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix <
> rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Please have a look at what's below and give me your
>> thoughts/opinions/suggestions
>>
>> We'd need to provide our reply by Sunday 3rd 2359 (got an extension) so I
>> would kindly ask you to have a look at this and provide your
>> suggestions/ideas in this thread by *Friday 1 Oct 2359*
>>
>> thank you,
>>
>> ***
>>
>> ·         *6.1.3: SO/AC/Groups should document their procedures for
>> non-members to challenge decisions regarding their eligibility to become a
>> member.*
>>
>> o    Could be implemented in coordination with NCSG. NCSG handles
>> membership requests at the SG level and SG membership is required for C
>> membership. Existing procedures concern only existing members (Operating
>> Procedures, IX). Would require an Operating Procedures amendment.
>>
> I agree to a certain extent to this recommendation  however the operating
> procedure should include consultation with the EC.
>
>> ·         *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*
>>
>> o    Could be implemented
>>
> I believe we should review and implement. I agree
>
>> ·         *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*
>>
>> o    Could be implemented. Formalizing such reporting as part of the
>> task of the executive committee would require a Bylaws amendment.
>>
> This is tricky, and may be subjective, it will depend on the Key
> deliverables on Accountability, transparency and participation, this will
> help decide if we met the target or fell short. We just have to set up a
> system of evaluation, then we can report appropriately.
>
>>
>>
> ·         *6.2.4: Meetings and calls of SO/AC/Groups should normally be
>> open to public observation. When a meeting is determined to be
>> members-only, that should be explained publicly, giving specific reasons
>> for holding a closed meeting…*
>>
>> o    Uncertain as to what kind of action is contemplated (“public
>> explanation and reasons”)
>>
> Meetings during ICANN events are always open, except if this is required
> for EC monthly calls, there is need for clarification here. The NCUC
> meetings should be open to the public I believe.
>
>> ·         *6.4.2: Each SO/AC/Group should maintain a publicly accessible
>> website/wiki page to advertise their outreach events and opportunities.*
>>
>> o    Outreach is handled on a case-by-case basis and given the
>> characteristics of our membership and executive committee we do not believe
>> it is warranted for us to create a standing outreach committee. Outreach
>> activities are already generally governed by Operating Procedures, VI.
>>
> If this will help increase the effectiveness of our outreach activities.
> Advertising our outreach opportunities and activities is a welcome idea, so
> that members know what is currently happening and who is engaged in it. I
> support the recommendation.
>
>> ·         *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.*
>>
>> o    Implemented (Bylaws, IV.G.2)
>>
>> ·         *6.5.2: Members of SO/AC/Groups should be involved in reviews
>> of policies and procedures and should approve any revisions.*
>>
>> o    Implemented (Operating Procedures, XV)
>>
>> ·         *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.*
>>
>> o    Could be implemented, to the extent of the maximum period and
>> temporary measures. Would require an Operating Procedures amendment.
>> I agree as well.
>>
>> Kind regards,
> Benjamin
>
>
>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 4:34 PM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix <
>> rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> Like many other things, this has flown under the radar for me this
>>> summer, but we need to decide whether and how we want to implement certain
>>> WS2 recommendations at the level of NCUC.
>>>
>>> I would thus kindly ask you *to familiarize yourself with the attached
>>> PDF*, especially all those recs flagged in red, and make up your mind
>>> about what you think should be done in that regard. Do note that we do not
>>> need to implement by Thursday, but we need to decide whether we want to
>>> implement, and have an idea how.
>>>
>>> I will be back to you *tomorrow morning eurotime* with more detailed
>>> suggestions as to what should be done for each rec, and I would then ask
>>> you to react to such suggestions, with your own, comments, approval (as the
>>> case may be,) etc.
>>>
>>> Thank you and have a nice day
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>> From: Chantelle Doerksen <chantelle.doerksen at icann.org>
>>> Date: Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 7:38 PM
>>> Subject: WS2 Mapping Inventory and Next Steps for the NCUC | Requested
>>> response by Thursday, 30 September
>>> To: Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix <rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com>, Maryam
>>> Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>, Brenda Brewer <
>>> brenda.brewer at icann.org>
>>> Cc: Jamal LeBlanc <jamal.leblanc at icann.org>, Carlos Reyes <
>>> carlos.reyes at icann.org>, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Raphael,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As follow-up from our call with you and the other GNSO SG/C leaders on
>>> Thursday, 5 August (call recording
>>> <https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/EC2J_MnLICCtKMZ3njiez8gmT8-vd8f5KKoD7hMTx685J0yTFOcnGkCZSXKn4qWUaYZ9fEeyFG8J7E37.qjzfrfKY8hlHzecV?startTime=1628168673000&_x_zm_rtaid=SELK-6DpQo-WAQybG5zoIw.1629124410352.da9182bfe280f00c43036bc28bd798ad&_x_zm_rhtaid=304>),
>>> we are sharing the first part of an inventory of Work Stream 2 (WS2)
>>> recommendations that staff has mapped for the NCUC. Please note that the
>>> focus is on those WS2 recommendations directed at the community and which
>>> are intended for each individual SO/AC/Group to decide whether to
>>> implement: viz. *Recommendations 1.2 - 1.6* (on Diversity
>>> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-acct-ws2-annex-1-diversity-final-recs-27mar18-en.pdf>),
>>> and *Recommendations 6.1 - 6.5* (on SOAC Accountability
>>> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-acct-ws2-annex-6-soac-final-recs-27mar18-en.pdf>
>>> ).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Scope of the initial mapping inventory:*
>>>
>>> The inventory is intended to be a preliminary gap analysis of the
>>> above-noted WS2 recommendations, mapped to your group’s current governance
>>> documents (e.g. your Charter or group bylaws) and, where applicable,
>>> operating procedures. The attached document covers Recommendations 6.1 -
>>> 6.5. Staff is currently conducting a similar mapping exercise for
>>> Recommendations 1.2 - 1.6 that we will circulate when complete.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For the other WS2 recommendations that were directed at the community
>>> (i.e. Recommendations 1.1 & 1.7
>>> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-acct-ws2-annex-1-diversity-final-recs-27mar18-en.pdf>
>>> ; Recommendation 2.3
>>> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-acct-ws2-annex-2-good-faith-guidelines-final-recs-27mar18-en.pdf>;
>>> and Recommendation 3
>>> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-acct-ws2-annex-3-hr-foi-final-recs-27mar18-en.pdf>),
>>> these were the subject of discussion at the SOAC Chairs Roundtable meeting
>>> in June as they are recommendations for which either community coordination
>>> and prioritization may be required or information sharing beneficial. In
>>> this regard, we hope that your group will be able to provide your opinion
>>> as to whether you support the suggestion to have an ad-hoc group of
>>> community representatives perform that coordination, prioritization and
>>> information-sharing work. As we mentioned on last Thursday’s call, ICANN
>>> org has asked that the SOAC Chairs revert with their respective community’s
>>> feedback by the next Roundtable meeting (currently expected to take place
>>> in September.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We wish to emphasize that the Cross-Community Working Group on
>>> Accountability for WS2 made it clear that decisions as to implementation
>>> and prioritization of these recommendations are voluntary. We are also
>>> mindful of the community’s workload, especially at this time and in
>>> consideration of the many important policy topics that your group is
>>> working on. We therefore hope that the staff-prepared inventory is helpful
>>> to your group’s review of the relevant recommendations.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Mapping inventory*:
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yQoIjRZnBIbaxwY6CVlPMjrMrZaweJFifmFxrIeyafI/edit#gid=0
>>>  (attached in PDF format for reference)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Next Steps*
>>>
>>> As a first step, we hope that completing a review of the inventory will
>>> allow your group to decide which (if any) of the relevant recommendations
>>> it wishes to implement. To the extent that the decision is to implement any
>>> specific recommendation, the next step can be to determine the relative
>>> priority, timeline and implementation method for each such recommendation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We will be happy to support your group in this effort. If there is a
>>> specific point of contact or any particular members of your group that we
>>> should be working with, we will be grateful if you can let us know who they
>>> are. We would also like to suggest *Thursday, 30 September *as a
>>> possible due date to aim for completing the initial inventory review for
>>> Recommendation 6. *Please let us know if you would like us to schedule
>>> a call with you or your group’s representatives to discuss the inventory*.
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Chantelle, Carlos, and Mary
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCUC-EC mailing list
>> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20211001/e9162065/attachment-0001.htm>