<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>I think an interest group model would have a lot of appeal, and
would allow for regional divergences in priorities as well. In
any case, we need to focus on the actual work we do, and figure
out administrative structures that support that work. The actual
"merger" may not be the desired goal for the immediate future,
although folks should understand what it entails, and how much our
administrative structures actually contribute to our work, or not,
as many have pointed out.</p>
<p>Stephanie Perrin<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2020-07-28 11:49 p.m., David Cake
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:F26B4B75-4526-4A89-862B-076DACE632E9@davecake.net">
While by no means as much the ’NCUC old school’ as some, either in
longevity of involvement, or in that I have been involved with
NPOC as well since then - it is worth looking back to the model
that NCUC was proposing for NCSG back in the far off days of
2008/2009 or so when the NCSG model was set. That model got a lot
of pushback from the board at that time, for reasons that I think
many of those on the board at the time would now admit was a
mistake (in fact, a few then board members have privately admitted
as much to me).
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">That original, proposed, model was that instead of
Constituencies that served distinct stakeholder groups like CSG,
and so needed to have distinct allocations of resources and
representation, we had more lightweight internal Interest Groups
formed around particular policy or structural concerns, with the
explicit acknowledgement that, as is normal in civil society,
there was a large degree of overlap in membership. So the
operational concerns of non-profits would be one such interest
group, and so much of the value of NPOC as a group could be
preserved, but acknowledging that most of the non-profits likely
to be heavily involved in the GNSO also have policy concerns
that overlap with many other civil society actors. And interest
groups like privacy or security or free expression would overlap
with groups or individuals that currently may be involved in
NPOC, NCUC, and/or NCSG. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Our current model is an awkward compromise between
our original model and the CSG model, largely imposed on us by a
board who had both fears and hopes for NCSG that we can reassess
far more realistically now that we have over a decades
experience in working with it. Some of the hoped for changes
since then have come to pass (for example, concerns about
ideological diversity within NCSG have been allayed by the
demonstration that orgs with very different political positions
could work together constructively in the IANA transition
process), others have been shown as unlikely to happen (large
civil society orgs that do not have a specific reason to involve
themselves domain name policy debate are very difficult to
engage, no matter how important and broad their role in society
at large might be). We are now able to think about redesigning
NCSG with practical knowledge to back up our positions. You can
see how aspects of our original preferred model made it into the
NCSG Charter and continue today, and aspects of the CSG model.
We do not have hardwired council seats like the CSG, we develop
most policy positions together, our councillors are usually not
bound to a specific policy position, recognising our internal
policy diversity, and an organisation can be a member of
multiple Constituencies - but we do have separate leadership
models and resources allocated to Constituencies. And I think it
is clear from experience that the times when we work together as
a unified body we are more effective at policy. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Having experienced working with and within all three
organisations extensively, I also think that the core policy
concerns of NPOC might actually be more effectively served that
way - without the overhead of NPOC having to perform its own
outreach and administration work, and without the duplication of
effort we all experience, but able to promote specific policy
and policy support activities for non-profit organisations
across the broader NCSG. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">And we clearly are no longer in a position where we
are able to see much of a coherent difference in policy concerns
or membership that makes apparent sense to outsiders. Sometimes,
if you don’t know the internal ICANN history or individuals
involved, it is very difficult to see why a particular
organisation might be more involved in NCUC or NPOC. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I’ll admit I don’t have a good feeling as yet for
how we might organise this Interest Group model across NCSG to
more meaningfully support a broader range of policy work. But I
think it is worth considering that the model of heavily siloed
constituencies does not reflect the reality of civil society,
and is not the most efficient or effective way to organise
ourselves internally. How we might more meaningfully reallocate
resources for policy work on this different model, and seek
alternate means of supporting as well, I don’t know (but would
be happy to be involved in discussions).</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">David<br class="">
<div><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On 28 Jul 2020, at 9:42 pm, dorothy g <<a href="mailto:dgdorothydg@GMAIL.COM" class="" moz-do-not-send="true">dgdorothydg@GMAIL.COM</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div class="gmail_default" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0,
0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal;
font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent:
0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
text-decoration: none; font-size: small;">So the idea is
to just have NCSG, no more NPOC and NCUC. So if the
group persists in going in the consolidation direction
the participation in the group to engage with ICANN
should be 2 from NPOC and 2 from NCUC. I do not get the
point of any participation from the umbrella group as
everyone there is from either NPOC or NCUC. If we have
definitional problems all we need to do is to provide a
clear standard definition. Your argument seems to tend
to the dissolution of NPOC as you explain the logic for
setting it up no longer exists. NPOC members may have a
different view. I just wish we could focus on getting
people to participate more effectively. Merging will not
in my view solve that fundamental problem.</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>