Hi Rachel,
Thanks for the message and questions, good opportunity to clarify some elements and I am sorry in advance if it is long response.
We tend to use the term working group widely but in practice there may denote different settings within ICANN, to make things more simpler I will focus on 2 :
- GNSO working groups (WG): since NCSG is part of GNSO, we focus on those working groups since they are initiated as part of Policy Development Process aka PDP. for example you can find the current list of active PDP WGs here http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/project.
many see probably several times traffic about RDS (Registration Directory Services) WG or RPM (Rights Protection Mechanisms) WG since they are quite heavy and long processes. the membership to those working groups is open to everyone, and you can select to be participant or observer. on other for some topics, there are what we call non-PDP working groups, usually open too.
you can find here a quick reminder aboutPolicy Development Process PDP: http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/31379/
- CCWG or Cross-Community Working Groups: quite new construct but in fact they exists in more restricted form like the joint group on IDN called JIG between ccNSO , GNSO and SSAC if I am not mistaking (membership was restricted) and the joint applicant support working group aka JAS between ALAC and GNSO. there was discussion by GNSO few years ago to formalize that including other supporting organization and advisory committees in ICANN.
The CCWG is chartered by more than 1 SO or AC. With IANA stewardship transition , there was agreement to have CCWG as model : one group about transition itself (aka CWG) and another one about the ICANN accountability (CCWG). the membership to those working groups is open to everyone, and you can select to be participant or observer, while SO/AC can send representatives there, for example NCSG has Robin as representative in CCWG on accountability. you may find the list of current or previous CCWG here https://community.icann.org/category/crosscommunitywg
There are other constructs more or less ad-hoc. Drafting team for example tasked to draft a charter for a working group and to be approved by chartering organizations. Fro example, we have a drafting team to work on charter about auctions proceeds. there is also working party format, definitely an ad-hoc setting and can be used as way to start working on topic before getting chartered and formalized like the cross-community working part on Human Rights. there are other "exotic" stuff like Implementation Review Teams (IRT), Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI) etc but just focusing on those above is plenty enough
unfortunately the ICANN website is hard to navigate or find those details, for PDP WG, GNSO website (gnso-icann.org) is much more useful also getting used to confluence wiki space for ICANN is useful too: community.icann.org.
usually during NCSG Policy call (I think there will be one in coming days), we discuss about current policies discussion and working groups updates. it is a good opportunity to catch up and find how to volunteer. for NCSG, we used to update this page with the volunteers in different working groups: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40928134 . Hopefully Maryam can update it quickly
important working groups, and I may biased here:
- Worstream 2 (ICANN accountability)
- RDS
- RPM
- New gTLD subsequent rounds.
More details and latest updates with links etc here in this briefing made for Helsinki meeting http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/background-briefings
I understand that there is expectation to get one single place to find all information , unfortunately there is none and it would take time to do so (just keeping it up to date and relevant is challenge). However, I encourage such questions, because it is more easier to respond and point to relevant information and also better for sharing.
hope that helps .
Best,
Rafik
2016-08-04 1:54 GMT+09:00 Rachel Pollack <[log in to unmask]>:
>
> Dear All,
>
> As a newcomer who has been subscribed to this list for less than a month, I don't a strong opinion on the issue of +1's / expression of support. But I have observed in my short time in ICANN how knowledgable and dedicated Stephanie is, and I hope that she will stay on as a councillor.
>
> For the very, very new like me, the question is less how to feel motivated to run for an elected position (which would be way too early) than figuring out the best way and place to get more involved. After joining NCSG, what's next?
>
> Completely separate from the elections question, would it be possible to have an overview of some of the GNSO and cross-community working groups to get a sense of where volunteers are most needed now? I checked the ICANN community website and have seen lots of information, but it would be helpful to know what the urgent areas are that could most benefit from new members. Does such a resource already exist?
>
> Feel free to respond to the list with ideas or to message me directly with advice.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Rachel
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Stephanie Perrin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> oops, left the list off this one....
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject:
>> Re: +1's and support
>> Date:
>> Wed, 3 Aug 2016 11:30:11 -0400
>> From:
>> Stephanie Perrin <[log in to unmask]>
>> To:
>> Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>>
>> +1 to what Amr said
>>
>> Regarding the issue of suppression of candidates, I think it is a human reality that if someone is somewhat less well-known but would like to participate more, they may be deterred by strong showing of support for more vocal or well-known candidates. This favours incumbents. Also favours english speakers who communicate extensively, IMHO. However, other than a couple of people who have contacted me off-list to agree, I don't think we have any hard evidence that it suppresses nominations. Some people who some of us have tried to persuade to run have declined because it is a lot of hard work and they cannot fit it into their schedule.
>>
>> Cheers Stephanie
>>
>>
>> On 2016-08-03 11:32, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 3, 2016, at 5:13 PM, Arsène Tungali <[log in to unmask]> wrote: An interesting debate that actually needs to be properly adressed. A scenario: A nomination was made for someone, then people started showing support (with +1s) until they realize there is another nomination that comes in and they now wonder how to cancel their first support given the new one is "more qualified and sounds the best" than the one they initially supported. If we only count +1s made for a candidate, we may get the wrong temperature of the room for so many reasons.
>>>
>>> I’ve never seen +1s to indicate who a person is going to vote for. It just shows that the person +1ing believes a candidate’s nomination is a good one. I don’t usually endorse nominations unless I have something I want to say about the candidate, but I have on occasion endorsed the nominations of multiple candidates running against each other. When I do, it isn’t because I’m trying to mess up the temperature of the room, but rather to indicate that I believe that we have more than one worthy candidate. Who I finally vote for is private, and at that point, I would have to pick one over the other taking into account many factors including candidate statements, etc… Thanks. Amr
>>
>>
>