[NCUC-DISCUSS] Troika merge proposal

Thu Jul 16 17:29:06 CEST 2020

Hi Steph

Much has been said already but I just want to comment on a specific point
you raised, that is whether travel is a perk.

One needs a lot of equipment and favorable circumstances for travel (the
sort that in person ICANN meetings offer) to be a career or personal
benefit. The more of this "base layer" you start with, the more profitable
f2f experiences are; if you have none, then it is all burden/wasted time
and no benefit. You can acquire some of this equipment and circumstances
(thinking money, passport, capacity building, etc.) But we all start from
different points, especially when it comes to where we grew up and what
kind of socialization we received as children. Yes, it does go that far
back: one that hears stories about mom and dad traveling abroad to business
trips will necessarily be more "ready to participate" at ICANN than someone
who's never had this kind of conversation. And that's just one example...

The thing we need to work on is what can be acquired through the means at
our (SC/Cs) disposal, while we need to remain keenly aware of the different
starting points, and the things we cannot provide (like a better passport
or a different socialization) Not that these differences imply a difference
in worth or value at the individual level, on the contrary! But they do
change dramatically how ready one is "naturally" to "participate" (for
one's and others' benefit) in a f2f ICANN meeting. If our efforts are
fostering broader participation do not take that into consideration, then
they risk being fruitless.

On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 12:13 PM Stephanie E Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> 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> 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> 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 listNcuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.orghttps://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>
>>> --
>>> Joy Liddicoat
>>> @internetrights
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>> 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 listNcuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.orghttps://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200716/22f2f5da/attachment.html>