Ayden,

Thanks for your comments and questions. I will be brief. Without some 
consensus around what the NCSG Policy Committee's deliverables should be 
there can be no measures of performance. Part of what has been done in 
the past is for the PC pull together comments for NCSG to submit on 
ICANN policy documents during ICANN comment periods. As good as that has 
been, it has been very ad hoc, and frequently with inadequate time for 
wider NCSG input to comments. There needs to be a polite discussion here 
of what the PC should do, within the constraints of doable tasks.

As for were I got stymied,it was on proposals to get wider constituency 
engagement during the comment periods toward the end of the policy 
development process. Criticism was well intended and said the push 
should be for early engagement in the PDPs and WGs, and not engagement 
toward the end of the policy process. I saw late engagement as an 
opening strategy to that end, and strategies at both ends are not 
mutually exclusive. It now appears that ICANN itself is now pushing for 
more constituency engagement in the comment periods toward the end of 
the policy process.

The key challenge remains how to cultivate earlier, deeper and broader 
engagement in ICANN's multistakeholder constituency processes. That 
challenge goes well beyond the scope and focus of the Policy Committees, 
and is part of ongoing NCSG/NCUC/NPOC discussions in their own right. I 
suspect that the phrase "one-on-one mentoring" might creep into that 
discussion.

Sam L, NPOC/csih

/On 8/19/2016 12:57 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
/
> /Hi Sam,
> /
> /
> /
> /Thanks for raising awareness of these past conversations and for 
> sharing your experience at a top of the pyramid of the NPOC Policy 
> Committee. Regarding this comment:
> /
> /
> /
>> /It is not that we cannot make a list of potential deliverables, it 
>> is just that there is no consensus on what those should be, and no 
>> working from that to the work agenda for the Policy Committees. As 
>> Policy Committee Chair I got (gently, or not) beaten around the head 
>> and shoulders when I put suggestions on the table.
>> /
> /
> /
> /For the benefit of those of us (like myself) who have not been 
> members of the NCSG for very long, could you please fill us in on what 
> these proposed deliverables were?
> /
> /
> /
> /I'm very curious as to how we can fairly evaluate the work of the 
> NCSG's Policy Committee. What are the indicators of success or failure 
> we can use and which reflect the values of concern to our membership? 
> (I ask this question rhetorically, it is something which demands input 
> and reflection from all of us.)
> /
> /
> /
> /Many thanks,
> /
> /
> /
> /Ayden Férdeline
> /
> /linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>/
>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: NCSG Policy Committee - Chair, etc.
>> Local Time: August 19, 2016 5:17 PM
>> UTC Time: August 19, 2016 4:17 PM
>> From: [log in to unmask]
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>> All,
>>
>> This is a follow up to Avri's comments. I hate changing the subject 
>> line on a thread but I have done it here because I think there is an 
>> issue residing behind Avri's comment /"..the reason the monthly//
>> //meetings have not worked is because the PC members, especially the 
>> council members, do not make participating a priority - no knock 
>> against the current members, over the years, the members never have."
>>
>> /My comments are based on serving (badly) as Chair of the NPOC Policy 
>> Committee. Despite what is written in Charters, etc. there is no 
>> clear understanding of what the Policy Committees at this level 
>> should actually be doing in terms of deliverables. It is not that we 
>> cannot make a list of potential deliverables, it is just that there 
>> is no consensus on what those should be, and no working from that to 
>> the work agenda for the Policy Committees. As Policy Committee Chair 
>> I got (gently, or not) beaten around the head and shoulders when I 
>> put suggestions on the table. Most of the criticism said simply, to 
>> use Stephanie Perrin's term, "recruit more worker bees for PDPs & 
>> WGs". Even some proposed strategies to deliver that outcome were 
>> trounced, although I see that ICANN itself is now trying some of them.
>>
>> This is not to criticize people, or offer excuses, it is just to 
>> underscore the need for a discussion here. I will not presume what 
>> the NCSG Policy Committee should focus on in terms of deliverables, 
>> but I do think that a healthy discussion of what that might be is 
>> needed.
>>
>> Sam L, NPOC/csih
>