[NCUC-DISCUSS] Troika merge proposal
Stephanie E Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Wed Jul 15 18:13:48 CEST 2020
Dorothy, I think you have summarized the real problem very succinctly.
Further, I think the research that Bruna and Louise led last year, where
we polled our members about participation, is largely in agreement with
your comments, and speaks to the need to solve this problem some how and
figure out incentives. We cannot rely, for our policy expertise, on
aging profs and experts, and whatever students they manage to attract to
do the heavy lifting. Because it is indeed heavy lifting....
The EPDP is ending very soon (although it threatens to go on and on like
the movie Rocky, with some of us diehards looking equally bloody). The
next step is the IRT, which will be important because we have punted a
lot of the hard stuff to implementation. Whoever goes there has to be
one of those who were on the EPDP......which underscores the systemic
isolation of those who do work on our issues. WE are now in a situation
where there are so few folks engaging with the work that if you are the
one on the team, you wind up writing the comments on the drafts,
summarizing our inputs etc. Doing briefing notes for others has zero
allure. Who is going to make the videos? I can imagine a willingness to
speak, to summarize the issues when it is fresh in my brain....but don't
ask me to take time out from all this to teach a class. Mentorship
strikes me as the only way out, but the question is what motivates
someone to want to be mentored, and what are they willing to do in
exchange for it? Kathy Kleiman has mentored many folks here under the
pilot program, I am hoping we can build a program based on that one but
we need keen mentors and motivated mentees. Folks don't appear to like
the idea that travel is a perc (yes, we do work hard at meetings) but in
my experience at work and volunteering, attending conferences is a
benefit and incentive, particularly when it includes international
travel and plenty of social events and opportunities to make
professional contacts.
Stephanie Perrin
On 2020-07-15 5:58 a.m., dorothy g wrote:
> Thank you Joy and Kathy for reminding us of the current programmatic
> priorities. I have no firm views on the proposed merger, I am
> waiting to learn more. I do feel though that it may not be the right
> tool to address the real issue. This in my humble opinion is how to
> encourage greater member participation and grow our numbers. How do we
> get tens of thousands of members to be active. Speaking from a
> personal level and drawing on my interactions with others over the
> years, members do not participate because they feel they do not
> understand the issues well enough. What are we really being asked to
> take a decision on? How can I possibly join in on a discussion when I
> do not really understand where my interests lie?
>
> So the challenge is how do we communicate better on the decision
> points. Do we ask volunteer researchers to set out the positions so
> people can argue out the case with them? Do we issue briefing notes?
> Short videos? Do we have policy debate groups? I am sure some of these
> have been tried in the past and perhaps other members have better
> ideas on how to do this.
>
> Some people have the advantage of interacting frequently with experts
> in the field, many do not. If the group is reduced to only those who
> deal with the issues as part of their day job we will not be able to
> solve the workload distribution issues mentioned in earlier mails even
> if we merge. I just looked at the ICANN pages on the Review of the
> Rights Protection mechanisms. In my view they would not help someone
> to get to know the issues. By definition our groups are made up of
> users. We must figure a way of encouraging them to think like experts.
> It should be that my position on the various aspects of rights
> protection mechanisms is as clear as my positions on vegemite and
> marmite. How do we get there? A merger may or may not be part of the
> solution. So let us address the real issue. I believe if we get this
> right we will grow into a more vibrant community and we will also
> inspire more generalised citizen engagement.
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 8:33 AM Joy Liddicoat <joy at liddicoat.nz
> <mailto:joy at liddicoat.nz>> wrote:
>
> Hi Dorothy, thanks for the question.
>
> There is always plenty going on and I feel somewhat guilty about
> identifying priorities that I can't at this stage work on!
> However, in the current work programme, my priorit picks would be:
>
> * the review of the rights protection mechanisms
>
> * the EDPD on the temporary specification for gLTD data
>
> As for possible new areas - it seems to have been a while since
> there as a proposal focused on access to knowledge ....
>
> Joy
>
> On 12/07/2020 8:08 pm, dorothy g wrote:
>> Dear Joy, Please share with me what you find to be the priority
>> issues right now. I would like another perspective as I
>> sometimes speak on this topic.
>> Navel gazing may help get more people thinking about the group!
>>
>> best
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 5:06 AM Joy Liddicoat <joy at liddicoat.nz
>> <mailto:joy at liddicoat.nz>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Joly - good question, thanks. To be honest, I have no
>> intention of responding to the debate at this point - the
>> idea generates about as much interest as I would have in
>> sharpening a blunt pencil and using it to poke holes in cheese.
>>
>> No disrespect intended to those who favour discussing it, but
>> honestly, with all the other issues in the DNS+ world right
>> now, I would have thought better to engage in substantive
>> policy work than on this kind of internal restructuring.
>>
>> I acknowledge that I say this as someone who hasn't engaged
>> in policy work for some time (for various reasons) and also
>> being from New Zealand, where we currently have the privilege
>> of living in a Covid-free community thanks to our strong
>> political leadership and collective community action.
>> However, this does give me a different perspective on ICANN,
>> gTLDs, ccTLDs and relative priorities.
>>
>> Joy Liddicoat
>>
>> On 12/07/2020 3:59 pm, Joly MacFie wrote:
>>> I notice a deafeniing silence from the NCUC old school on
>>> this topic. Are we keeping our powder dry?
>>>
>>> joly
>>>
>>> --
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> Joly MacFie +2185659365
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> -
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>
>> --
>> Joy Liddicoat
>> @internetrights
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> stay well, kind regards
>> Dorothy Gordon
>
> --
> Joy Liddicoat
> @internetrights
>
>
>
> --
>
> stay well, kind regards
> Dorothy Gordon
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20200715/dacbb97c/attachment.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list