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

Sat Oct 2 04:29:48 CEST 2021

My comments below. Apologies for the delay. 

Ken

From: NCUC-EC <ncuc-ec-bounces at lists.ncuc.org> On Behalf Of Benjamin Akinmoyeje
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2021 11:06 PM
To: Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix <rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com>
Cc: Exec. Comm <ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org>
Subject: Re: [NCUC-EC] [TIME SENSITIVE] Fwd: WS2 Mapping Inventory and Next Steps for the NCUC

Dear Raphael,

Kindly find my responses below.

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 11:15 AM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix <rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com <mailto: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.

KH: I agree with both Olga and Ben.

*         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 

KH: Agree that this makes sense to implement.

*         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. 

KH: I agree in general that it would be useful, but it’s not as if we need more to do. Imagine, a “brief” report on all these topics? I don’t think so. I agree with Olga that formalizing this level of reporting is a bit unsustainable.

*         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.

KH: IMO, this only applies if and when the EC decides to conduct a “closed” meeting, and I cannot imagine this happening. Are there times when it does? If so, I am not sure I agree that it needs to be justified publicly. 

*         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. 

KH: I agree with Olga that I do not see this as requiring any additional mechanism but rather communication and documentation of outreach activities. This I believe the EC already does, so I support the response as it is drafted. 

*         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.

KH: I agree also.

Kind regards,

Benjamin

On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 4:34 PM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix <rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> >, Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org <mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org> >, Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer at icann.org <mailto:brenda.brewer at icann.org> >
Cc: Jamal LeBlanc <jamal.leblanc at icann.org <mailto:jamal.leblanc at icann.org> >, Carlos Reyes <carlos.reyes at icann.org <mailto:carlos.reyes at icann.org> >, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org <mailto: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 ( <https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/EC2J_MnLICCtKMZ3njiez8gmT8-vd8f5KKoD7hMTx685J0yTFOcnGkCZSXKn4qWUaYZ9fEeyFG8J7E37.qjzfrfKY8hlHzecV?startTime=1628168673000&_x_zm_rtaid=SELK-6DpQo-WAQybG5zoIw.1629124410352.da9182bfe280f00c43036bc28bd798ad&_x_zm_rhtaid=304> call recording), 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  <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-acct-ws2-annex-1-diversity-final-recs-27mar18-en.pdf> Diversity), and Recommendations 6.1 - 6.5 (on  <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-acct-ws2-annex-6-soac-final-recs-27mar18-en.pdf> SOAC Accountability). 

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.  <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-acct-ws2-annex-1-diversity-final-recs-27mar18-en.pdf> Recommendations 1.1 & 1.7;  <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-acct-ws2-annex-2-good-faith-guidelines-final-recs-27mar18-en.pdf> Recommendation 2.3; and  <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-acct-ws2-annex-3-hr-foi-final-recs-27mar18-en.pdf> Recommendation 3), 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 <mailto: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/20211001/7a81888e/attachment-0001.htm>