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

[Olivier Kouami]

+1
Warm regards
Olévié

Le sam. 8 août 2020 à 02:04, Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin at gmail.com> a
écrit :

> 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/20200808/c1050d80/attachment.htm>