> *- Should NPOC have an profile on X?*
> NPOC should have one, definitely. For as long as the constituency's
> Charter does not say otherwise (and I would always advocate against
> this), there are no political/ideological filiations to be ascribed to.
Privacy and freedom of speech might not be explicitly mentioned in the
NPOC charter, but they do go under the "human rights" goals of NCSG.
Many of us feel the current X under Musk has policies that go against
our core values. In any case, it is a good discussion to have.
I'd rather argue the opposite. The only reason why Meta has admitted to censor information on Facebook under government pressure is because Musk opened the Twitter Files. Censorship was rampant under Twitter.
I've observed a general demonization of Musk by civil society which I find mind-blowing. Everyone should be happy that the CIC has been exposed and that things have started to shift.
> From a Charter standpoint, NPOC is mandated to have its own Outreach
> people/team.
That could be seen as a feature or a bug, depending on your
perspective. :)
At the current stage of affairs, all we can do is comply with the Charters we have.
> On the other hand, while I do see the value of synchronizing campaigns
> across NCSG, if NPOC and NCUC are distinct constituencies with their own
> objectives then it's not advisable to merge their outreach as it may
> cause confusion across members.
That is where I question how much difference there is in the objectives.
That's a fair conversation.
> Should this being considered, why stop at SocMed? Merging websites would
> be the next logical step.
Indeed.
😅
> Also, the tools NCSG, NPOC and NCUC use are likely to be different.
> Licensing/learning curve and handover across cycles is to be taken into
> consideration.
I think having different tools is exactly what we want to avoid.
We should run an audit of existing tools (we kinda started that some months back) and see what can be done.
Happy to sit down on this during ICANN81.
I am blur about what are our options for these type of ad-hoc work, mostly because of the room booking methodology.
> As part of the overall work to reassess and improve NPOC's IT
> infrastructure, the credentials management issue has been addressed. We
> currently have a running Vaultwarden instance that stores all
> credentials and allows for a very smooth handover across next EC cycles.
> We could consider a similar approach for NCSG & NCUC should the ECs be
> interested.
I think we should definitely look into that.
That is easy.
My only concern is VPS real estate, which I guess NCSG/GNSO/Finance may be able to help?
Julf