+1. Maria On 21 October 2011 10:20, William Drake <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > On Oct 21, 2011, at 4:23 AM, Alex Gakuru wrote: > > In my Kiswahili language lies a proverb, “asiyekubali kushindwa sio > mshindani” [one that never agrees to defeat can never be a winner] > > > This seems apt. > > My collegial advice to our friends in NPOC: > > 1. Recruit organizations represented by identifiable members or staff > who actually wish to participate in NCSG and ICANN beyond materializing to > vote when prompted from D.C. > > 2. Have them submit their membership applications themselves to the Exec > Committee. Do this well in advance of the next election, rather than at the > 11th hour, so EC volunteers have sufficient time to properly vet their > applications. If that vetting does not yield your desired results, provide > additional information and if necessary, take steps specified in the charter > in hopes of achieving better outcomes. > > 3. Have open dialogue on a publicly archived listserv to define a > distinctive, substantive policy agenda of operational concerns pertaining to > the range of GNSO issues. If you largely focus on trademark protection for > your member organizations, other people will quite naturally conclude that > you are only concerned with trademark protection for your member > organizations. > > 4. Have the above mentioned people bring those concerns to the NCSG list > and debate them with the wider membership so everyone knows who they are, > and so we can collectively identify where we all agree and can work together > in Council, working groups, etc., and where we need to agree to disagree and > represent our views separately in ICANN. If you actually talk to NCUC > members you may find that they share some of said operational concerns and > will back you. Eschew the silo mentality, it doesn't matter exactly how many > of your own people are on Council at any given time if you persuade the SG > as a whole that something is right to do. > > 5. Having done the above, get some of your people to stand for election in > the next cycle. If they're known and have a record of good faith > participation they may get NCUC votes, irrespective of whether there's > agreement on all points. Win by persuading, rather than by trying to stack > the deck. > > 6. Terminate your long standing practices of communicating privately with > staff and board members whenever you want something or have concerns and > then refusing to answer questions from others about this. It is really > uncollegial and not at all "trust building" when, as just happened with your > travel funding complaint, we receive email from the chair of the board > saying he's considering how to respond to you but we don't even know what > your complaint is. It is nice that for the first time, you decided to share > a complaint letter, on the election (although not so nice that your VC spent > two hours on a call with us the night prior without mentioning it). Still, > it would be better to try sorting out differences in house rather than > immediately running to the board and demanding that the charter be subverted > in order to mandate your desired outcomes. > > This is not rocket science. > > Bill > > > > > >