[Ec-ncuc] Publicizing NCUC policy work

[Brenden Kuerbis]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:05 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

<snip>

>
> That being the case, we should publicize his hard work and our sign of
> life.  Wilson, can you put it on the NCUC website, SVP?
>
> Also, I think this was discussed once but don't recall the answer--- who
> has the Twitter account https://twitter.com/NCUC ?  Brenden, is that you?
>  How can we share access to it?  It's not obvious at this point that the
> Communications Team will develop any mo, so in the meanwhile I guess we
> should define an alternative, maybe involving the EC and our reps in the
> NCSG PC…?   Once it's on the website, it should get tweeted...
>


I've already shared the admin login info for the Twitter account with
Wilson, and will do the same with anyone interested in using it. At some
point we might consider using a web based tool that allow multiple people
to manage an organizational Twitter account, e.g., SproutSocial.

BTW, the website is set to tweet the title of any blog post made. So no
work there, just get it up on the website, which anyone can do (although an
admin (i.e., Wilson, me, anyone else??) needs to feature it on the front
page).

-- B




>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill
>
>
> *PS: as a reminder on the PC issue, I append below an earlier message; of
> course, subsequent discussions/actions etc. bear on this as well.
>
>
> *From: *William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
> *Subject: **NCUC Policy Committee*
> *Date: *December 14, 2012 11:52:42 AM GMT+01:00
> *To: *"EC-NCUC at ipjustice.org" <ec-ncuc at ipjustice.org>
>
> Hi
>
> Another thread to lay on your tables for whenever you have time to
> respond...
> *
> *
> The current, wildly out of date NCUC charter
> http://ncuc.org/page/charter-1 says that we have a PC that, inter alia,
>
> *shall be responsible for determining and liaising with the NCSG
> Councilors on the positions of the Constituency on matters of domain name
> and ICANN policy and procedure to the Generic Names Supporting Organization
> of ICANN (the GNSO), the GNSO Council, and other ICANN policy committees,
> working groups, advisory committees, and policy forums.
>
> The Policy Committee shall consist of 2 (minimum) to 5 (maximum) NCUC
> representatives. Each representative should ideally be an ‘expert’ in each
> of ICANN’s policy mandated areas. The Chair of NCUC will also be included
> in the PC but will not act as its Chair.
>
> *
> *Shall be elected for two-year terms by the NCUC Executive Committee. Any
> member can nominate and be nominated in the PC. Members can serve on the PC
> for no more than two consecutive terms.
> *
>
> In my four years as a Councilor, This was never a real thing.  I recall
> conversations about how we were supposed to have a PC, and there was a
> brief period in late 2011 in which we started using a listserv and
> determined that the committee consisted of the 3 elected NCUC GNSO
> Councilors at the time (Bill, Mary, Wendy) and Konstantinos, Milton, and
> Robin.  But we never used it much, and certainly did not attempt to
> determine the positions of the NCUC for Councilors, who normally vote their
> conscience unless there's a particularly strong group view.  The main
> rationale for having it seemed to be transparency, talking policy on a
> publicly archived list http://mailman.ctyme.com/listinfo/pc-ncuc.  In any
> event, while the people nominally on the PC talked all the time and
> collaborated on policy anyway, we didn't really make use of the structure
> per se.
>
> When I started thinking about charter revisions, my initial instinct was
> to kill it.  After all, if we can't populate and operate it, then we
> shouldn't nominally have it and be operating out of synch with our charter.
>  I still lean in this direction a little.
>
> BUT, another option would be to make it a thing.  I've proposed that Avri
> and Mary represent us on the NCSG-PC.  They could also be on the NCUC-PC,
> and the bridge between the two.  And we could add a few other folks who'd
> like to be engaged in real, substantive issues work— helping stimulate and
> coordinate dialogue and consensus formation with our Councilors, members on
> GNSO working groups, etc.; ensuring that the constituency gets out
> responses to Public Comment periods and other position statements; and so
> on.
>
> I guess a main argument for this might be that it'd promote group identity
> and collaboration without us having to wait and see all the time if NPOC
> has an opinion and then negotiate a common stance etc.  When they're able
> to come to a view and we can do things at the SG level great, that's more
> useful in the GNSO structure, but as a constituency we should also be
> prepared to react quickly and freely whenever we want/need.
>
> So another thing to consider…we'll talk about all these a bit in LA as
> well.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20130220/2a4678da/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Ec-ncuc mailing list
Ec-ncuc at ipjustice.org
http://mailman.ctyme.com/listinfo/ec-ncuc