NCUC agenda => NCSG Interest Groups

[Alex Gakuru]

Hi,

I much support their inclusion on the agenda. Interest Groups offer NCSG
community a very flexible, bottom-up driven, structuralism unconstrained
avenue to address diverse Non-Commercial interests. Broader appealing
issues gain traction, further details collected, collated, sifted through
leading to their subsequent escalation up the food chain.

Alex

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 1:58 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> It's great to see people expressing interest in doing some work on
> substantive policy issues. Now that we are finally past all the charter &
> election-related process stuff and have our teams in place, maybe we can
> start making some headway in pushing a noncommercial public interest
> agenda?   A question then arises as to how best to organize our efforts.
>  One option is to do it ad hoc, i.e. when an issue comes up in Council we
> form a team to draft inputs for consideration & possible adoption by the SG
> or constituencies.  Another option that may be more suitable for ongoing
> issues is to establish interest groups (IGs).  If people are motivated
> enough to make them work, these could foster sustained dialogue, community
> building, and institutional memory around the respective issues.  Which
> option makes the most sense will of course vary across cases.  The ad hoc
> approach is self evident, but for folks who weren't involved then or don't
> remember, it might be worth taking a second to revisit the IG approach.
>
> We discussed the notion of IGs at some length @ two years ago in the
> context of the NCSG charter debate (see the list archive for details).  At
> that point the driving question was whether it made sense to organize the
> NC space into a bunch of issue-specific constituencies that would be board
> recognized and have Council seats hard wired to each, or instead to
> organize the SG into more flexible IGs that could be formed and dismantled
> on a bottom-up basis as needed.  The desire to avoid the SG degenerating
> into a bunch of turf conscious silos competing for Council seats (which
> wouldn't work anyway should we get to more than six) led many people to
> think IGs were the way to go, but then in Seoul the board agreed
> that Council seats would not be hard wired to constituencies and we could
> elect Councilors on a SG-wide basis, so that part of the impetus
> for IGs fell away.  Thereafter the IG movement stalled as the Charter
> progressed and we became a two constituency formation and…you know the rest.
>
> Anyway, now that our structure is set, we might want to consider whether
> IGs could be a useful way for folks with particular specific interests to
> work together, including on a cross-constitutency basis.  Back when this
> conversation happened, a number of NCUC members expressed interest in doing
> IGs and we set up lists on the NCUC ning http://ncdnhc.org/groups.  Some
> signed up for "Interest Groups in Formation" on Development & Capacity
> Building (9 members), libraries (2 members), Scientific/Technical
> Academics/Experts (5 members), Freedom of Expression, Privacy, & Human
> Rights (7 members), individuals (3 members…don't recall what this was
> about), and consumer rights (6 members).  People also signed up for a bunch
> of other sub-groups related to particular Council initiatives, like the
> GNSO Operations Team.  Some of these groups had bits of dialogue for
> awhile, others not so much, and in any event all sort of drifted thereafter.
>
> So my question is, would it be worth trying to reboot IGs on a SG-wide
> basis and situate these on the Confluence page
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Home?  Returning to
> Avri's list and Wendy's reply,
>
>
>
> On 10/31/2011 06:24 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> I don't speak for NCUC, but in developing NCSG policy, I'd love to
>
> convene people online and/or in real-time voice/chat to discuss issue
>
> areas for focus in the next 6-12 months.
>
>
> Among those I see on the table:
>
>
> Registrar Accreditation and Law Enforcement requests
>
> registrants' rights
>
> best practices for domain name suspension (it's happening;
>
> at least it should happen with due process checks and controls)
>
> UDRP review, and other TM-rights-protection mechanisms (RPMs)
>
> Engagement with developing countries
>
> Engagement with the GAC
>
> New gTLD roll-out
>
> Technical security and stability
>
>
> ...and I'm sure I'm missing several.
>
>
> I'd love to see volunteers from among the membership take leadership of
>
> issue areas and commit to watching for developments, tracking
>
> opportunities for involvement and NCSG response, and drafting issue
>
> analyses and public comments.
>
>
> —Wendy
>
>
> Establishing IGs on some of these ongoing items would seem a good way to
> do what Wendy's suggesting.
>
> I pushed the development IG
> http://ncdnhc.org/group/interestgroupdevelopment and Rafik, Amr, Fouad,
> Alex and Baudouin added comments…would those folks, and others who've
> expressed interest now, like to give it another shot?  We could try to
> advance the broader strategic questions we've tried to ask the board about,
> and that Katim's aborted initiative was supposed to take up, as well as be
> a home for specific items like tracking and advocating for JAS/applicant
> support.   What about the folks interested in consumer rights, include the
> RAA?  And why not have IGs on trademarks, copyright etc. to keep track of
> UDRP and related, a FOE/privacy/law enforcement IG, a security and
> stability IG, and so on….?
>
> Should we maybe talk about this approach on the next policy call?
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20111106/0c37faa8/attachment-0001.html>