Summary Comments on the Discussion Concerning consolidating NCSG, NCUC and NPOC

[Tomslin Samme-Nlar]

Thank you Sam. Well summarised.

Like you mentioned in your summary, we must continue to work on improving
the Troika. Taking into consideration all the good points that have been
raised during the life of your post and discussion.

Cheers,
Tomslin


On Fri., 7 Aug. 2020, 00:29 Sam Lanfranco, <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:

> NCSG, NCUC & NPOC Colleagues,
>
> I would like to express my thanks for the discussion that followed my
> deliberately provocative posting on possible futures for those of us
> working in the troika. This is my summary statement for now.
>
> The discussion was rich and insightful with some deep-felt positions
> agreeing that we could restructure to do better. Collectively we are
> administratively top heavy. We are persistently short of volunteers to
> cover our role in the core work of ICANN (policy development, document
> review, etc.). Our recruitment of active and engaged membership has been
> wanting.
>
> Given the size of the global civil society and non-profit sectors our
> recruitment efforts, independently and working with ICANN, have been of
> weak success. This is as serious an issue at two levels. One is the
> shortage of engaged members for the core work of ICANN. The other is the
> weight of our voice within ICANN.
>
> In this discussion one colleague said that NPOC is the “Voice of the
> non-profit sector”. No. NPOC cannot claim that any more than NCUC can claim
> that it is the voice of non-commercial users.  We are hearty bands of
> volunteers who, to the best of our ability, voice the concerns of
> non-commercial users and the non-profit sector. We have no formal
> accountability and base our efforts on our best intentions. For example, my
> NPOC position comes from the Canadian Society for International Health
> (CSIH) NPOC membership. CSIH was once concerned about abuse around health
> gTLDs. They are no longer concerned, I am no longer formally accountable,
> and I should shift to individual NCSG membership.
>
> ICANN needs us as a legitimate part of its multistakeholder model. While
> we are representatives FROM our constituencies, without formal
> accountability we are not representatives OF our constituencies.
>
> The good work of those who volunteer for policy development, elected
> positions, and other ICANN tasks bolster mainly individual reputations and
> standings within ICANN. The weight of the troika’s voice within ICANN, as
> the troika, rests on the breadth and depth of our membership, and we are
> weak there.
>
> I would hope that as part of our work agenda for 2020-2021 we have an
> ongoing discussion and look at structural changes that increase member
> engagement in ICANN work, reduce troika administrative work, and enhance
> the attractiveness of membership from our global constituencies.
>
> Lastly, I would like to than Milton and others for correcting me when I
> got parts of the early organizational history wrong.
>
> Sam Lanfranco
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20200807/8b69b7f3/attachment.htm>