On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:55 AM, Robin Gross
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Folks:
ICANN is working with us revamp these pages. We are in the phase where they did the first rev and are looking for further feedback for improvements. So please make a list of desired improvements.
Thank you for that information. We on the e-platform committee at the NCUC keep getting surprised by new information concerning ICANN's e-platform transformation. You may recall the astonishment of our Constituency Chair at the fine work the NCSG EC had been doing trying to get ICANN involved in managing our member list. We were spending our time trying to figure out how to do it ourselves when we learned of those efforts. It's a shame to waste time of volunteers.
Would you be so kind, Robin, as to send Mr. Wilson Abigaba, coordinator of the NCUC e-platform committee, the e-mail address of a contact at ICANN with whom he can communicate and learn more about the ICANN revamp? I'm not aware of any ICANN-NCUC contact on this matter, although I certainly could mistaken. It is needed.
I'd suggest the same courtesy might be extended to Wilson's counterpart at NPOC. NPOC has a fine web presence and I'm sure they would like to be involved in the revamp if they are not already.
I've asked all members of the NCSG Policy Committee (including Avri) to please update the confluence pages as we go along. I'm welcoming more people to update these pages as well. All ncsg members are welcome to contribute to these pages.
Thanks Robin.
I would respectfully not describe disappearing constituencies as updating pages. It may be the way to go, but as an elected representative of the NCUC EC I would appreciate our Committee being consulted before any such action is taken in the future. Again it's a question of policy (the decision to disappear the pages) versus implementation (eliminating NCUC from certain pages). Updating pages, great. Disappearing things, let's talk so we aren't surprised to wake up to unexpected changes.
I don't think anyone said NCUC shouldn't prepare policy summaries.
No one ever said you did.
There was simply a recognition that the CEO asked it of ncsg at the intercessional and the ncsg-pc will pull some together. I'm sure policy summaries from any group including constituencies wishing to prepare them would be most welcome.
Again, that's not what I experienced. E-mails I received from some of our more respected senior policy members/ NCSG councilors after the Intercessional clearly indicated a belief these summaries were to be done on a Constituency level and indicated a desire to get started. There is honest disagreement here amongst good faith individuals that should be respected.
I'm still trying to figure out why we're so caught up in this biblical type interpretation. Fadi is very much alive. Can we not thank him for spending 100 minutes with us and attempt to clarify if he wanted executive summaries from 1) the Constituencies, 2) the SG or 3) both. I'm personally rooting for #3. Let's find out what the man wants and give it to him.
On Feb 10, 2013, at 7:37 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Might I ask, though, where you derived your authority to make some editorial changes to the website?
>
> as a member of the NCSG Policy Committee, I asked the policy committee if anyone minded if I made the changes.
> no one objected and the chair of the NCSG said go ahead.
>
> cheers
>
> avri
>
One of the best parts of transparency is everyone knows who made what decision. That way displeasure or approval are directed at the proper parties.
At NCUC we now know we can't count on the stability of our confluence presence should our NCSG colleagues have a change of heart. As such, we can act appropriately in redesigning our web presence.
Thanks again, Avri, for the information. It is very much appreciated, as is all of your hard work at almost every level of ICANN and the IG world beyond.