[Membership-affairs] {SPAM} Re: [NCUC-EC] point on the membership survey

[Walid AL-SAQAF]

*Hi Rafik, Bill and all,*

*Thanks for the feedback. Below I indicate the action or took and questions
so we could move forward:*

On Feb 23, 2015, at 3:23 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> > Q15: Regarding the second option: posing use of the NCSG wiki as an
>> alternative to the NCUC
>> >mail list seems confusing because the survey is for NCUC members, not
>> NCSG members, and they
>> >wouldn’t get any NCUC info from the NCSG wiki.  If you want to frame it
>> as a choice between platforms
>>  >for updates, wouldn’t it make sense to say ncuc.org instead?  Second,
>> "to get for updates” needs a copy edit.
>>
>> *You're right. Now it's fixed.*
>>
>
> I suggested ncsg.is since it includes a lot of info about policy work.
> you can still add that to the question  with ncuc.org
>
>
> Sure, just indicate which why so no confusion
>

*I changed the option to: "It's too much! So instead, post updates on
ncuc.org <http://ncuc.org> for NCUC activities and ncsg.is <http://ncsg.is>
for updates on policy work"*

*Please let me know if this makes sense or suggest some other formulation.*


>> > Q16: The list mixes current groups with older ones like JAS but not
>> MAPO, not sure why.
>>
>> *This is actually a great observation. For someone who is not a veteran
>> -like myself- I would certainly not know about which WGs or committees are
>> continuing and which are no longer active. I just relied on the official
>> ICANN GNSO Confluence web page
>> <http://t.signalecinque.com/e1t/c/5/f18dQhb0S7lC8dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9nMJN7t5XX4Rs3g6VRJgRz5wvCLRW2zq5cM56dB2Rf3GmCG602?t=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fcategory%2Fgnso&si=4815485689397248&pi=c480a93d-7f2d-44d1-faec-ad532df805ca>
>> and simply copied and pasted all the working groups and committees that
>> were listed there under the two headlines:*
>>
>> *- Joint SO/AC Working Groups*
>>
>
> The term of art is Cross Community Working Groups, probably best to use
> the official lingo
>

*Just so we don't spend too much more time on this, could you do me a favor
and point out that the below active list is what we want to include in the
survey? Is there anything else missing, incorrect, or needs removal?*

*GNSO Working Groups:*


   1.
*Curative Rights Protections for IGO/INGOs (IGO-INGO-CRP) *
   2.
*Discussion Group – New gTLD Subsequent Rounds (ngTLDs-DG) *
   3.
*GAC-GNSO Consultation Group on Early Engagement (GAC-GNSO-CG) *
   4.
*Geo Regions Review Community-wide WG *
   5.
*GNSO Data & Metrics for Policy Making WG *
   6.
*GNSO PDP Improvements Discussion Group (PDP-IMPR) *
   7.
*GNSO Review Committee (REVIEW) *
   8.
*GNSO Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) *
   9.
*Policy & Implementation WG (POLIMP) *
   10.
*RAA Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues WG (PPSAI) *
   11.
*Translation/Transliteration of Internationalized Registration Data WG
   (T&T)  *


*Cross Community Working Groups connected to GNSO:*


   1.
*CCWG on Enhancing ICANN Accountability *
   2.
*CCWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related
   Functions *
   3.
*CCWG on Internet Governance (CWG-IG) *
   4.
*CCWG to develop a framework for the use of Country and Territory names as
   TLDs (CWG-UCTN) *
   5. *CCWG to develop a Framework of Principles for Future CWGs
   (CWG-Principles) *

*- GNSO Working Groups/Drafting Teams/Steering Committees/Work Teams*
>>
>
> for GNSO WGs, the list and status is indicated here:
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/project, active
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active , completed here
> http://gnso.icann.org/group-activites/inactive-teams.htm
> other GNSO activities, which are not necessarily WGs
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/other
>
> there is no master list for CCWGs and confluence remains the reference.
> btw JAS is dormant and can be reactivated anytime
>
>
> So active and sleeping but wake-able seems a good cut
>

*I don't think it is necessary to include any other WGs apart from those
that are active. But if I'm missing something on the above lists, do let me
know.*


> we can ask people about WGs in general if they are or were participating
> in some. that can give an idea of some didn't get involved since a while.
>
> >In any event, could you please include the Cross Community Working Group
>> on Internet Governance as an option, a
>> >number of us are in there.  Ditto the CCWG on Accountability.  I'd list
>> the informal CC group on human rights
>> >as well, a number of us have been putting in time there.  More
>> generally, it might be sensible to separately
>> >group the GNSO groups and the CCWGs.
>>
>> *I have split the question into to, one for GNSO groups and the other for
>> CCWGs, whose list I also got  from the Confluence page
>> <http://t.signalecinque.com/e1t/c/5/f18dQhb0S7lC8dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9nMJN7t5XX4Rs3g6VRJgRz5wvCLRW2zq5cM56dB2Rf3GmCG602?t=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fcategory%2Fcrosscommunitywg&si=4815485689397248&pi=c480a93d-7f2d-44d1-faec-ad532df805ca>.
>> I am still not fully aware of which WGs are active and which are not. Let
>> me know if I need to remove any.*
>>
>
>
>> > Q19: Neither the bylaws nor event planning teams nor the lists created
>> for them are operational.  Similarly,
>> >there is no NCUC privacy group, and to be honest I didn’t know a mail
>> list had been created.  I’d suggested
>> >such a group last year when about twenty people said they were
>> interested in working on privacy, but then
>> >others objected that any privacy work had to be done at the SG level
>> (where no privacy group was formed,
>> >but whatever).  Listing these will artificially increase the number of
>> “not engaged” responses and present a
>> >distorted picture.  I would remove these options, and if we (re)create
>> groups to perform these functions in the
>> >future and fire up the lists we can put fresh information on the website.
>>
>
> @Bill just for clarification, there is a NCSG privacy list  and there was
> discussion following-up the meeting with the board in singapore last year
> .and there is even an etherpad where several people worked on .
>
>
> Ah, thanks, I forgot Rafik.  Is there a single page somewhere with
> pointers all NCSG mail lists, like
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo?  I should know this but
> don’t, and don’t see it on the wiki.  I know some are hosted at Syracuse
> and some at IPJustice but links could be aggregated...
>

*Does that mean that I should re-include NCUS-Privacy list as an option or
is it dormant? Or is there another name (e.g., NCSG-Privacy)? Where is the
mailing list subscription URL? I found a reference to it here:
http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2014-March/016196.html
<http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2014-March/016196.html> But
it just takes me to the NCSG-discuss list.*

*Furthermore, am I correct to assume that every NCUC member is also a
member of NCSG-DISCUSS? If not, then I could add it to the list of mailing
lists and also include the NCUC-Privacy. *


>
> BTW Walid I think one of your questions was about whether a guide to
> acronyms would help new members.  Have you seen this
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/glossary-2014-02-03-en
>
>
*What I had in mind is a smaller more dynamic list that has terms most
frequently used within the NCUC discussions and include more recently
established terms, such as CCWG  on IG (Cross Community Working Group on
Internet Governance). I am hoping that such a list would include every
single abbreviation that is mentioned in mailing list discussions but not
necessarily in the master list you referred to. That's why I included
'relevant to NCUC topics' in the option. I know that CC and WG are straight
forward. But for a brand newcomer, they may not be.*


> Maybe we should link to it from the NCUC page as Rafik has done from the
> NCSG wiki…In fact, I don’t think we have many links between the two
> generally, maybe we should look into better integration.
>
> *Just as a side note, it surprised me how many new ideas and conclusions
emerged simply by developing this survey. I guess there's room to create
better and stronger links between NCUC, NCSG and GNSO and also better
organize, update and clean up the online space. It's also been a good
exercise for me as the survey developer:)*


> Any other questionnaire feedback from people, or are we ready to launch?
>

*Yes please, I think we need more input from the rest of you folks.*


>
>
Best
>
> Bill
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/membership-affairs/attachments/20150223/d13cf214/attachment-0002.html>