A Proposal to Merge NCSG, NCUC and NPOC for More Efficiency in ICANN=?utf-8?Q?=E2=80=99s_?=DNS Work

[Sam Lanfranco]

 A Proposal to Merge NCSG, NCUC and NPOC for More Efficiency in ICANN’s
DNS Work 

	 Sam Lanfranco (NPOC/NCSG member) – July 2020 
	This suggestion has been a long time coming. It contains a proposal that
should be considered as a topic for both “in house” and broader global
stakeholder engaged dialogue. It will likely be received with some
resistance and consternation among our “in house” colleagues but
resigning it to the dust bin without consideration and reflection would be
mistake. 

	The collective mission of  the three entities, NCSG, NCUC and NPOC:
referred to here as “the troika”, within ICANN can be simply put as
advocating for and helping giving voice to the non-profit sector, the
public interest, and marginalized Internet users within the DNS community.
Whether that is an adequate definition of the collective mission within the
ICANN DNS remit may be an issue for further stakeholder discussion, but
that issue is not germane to this proposal to merge the troika into a
single entity. 

	 First a bit of simplistic history. NCUC was constituted as the first
stakeholder constituency within the troika. With the creation of NPOC the
NCSG was created as the “uber” member of the troika. The initial
impetus for NPOC was the DNS concerns of large global NGOs such as the Red
Cross, Red Crescent, Salvation Army, and other organizations with an
affiliated global presence. As their concerns progressed through ICANN
those concerned organizations basically bypassed the troika and reached
higher up in dealing with ICANN. The troika role was mainly reduced to
offering stakeholder comments on the process. 

	 At the same time, over the better part of a decade there has been a blend
of cooperation and competition between the structures of the troika. There
are “old timers” who still harbor some resentment toward its creation,
and “newcomers” who wonder why there are sore spots.  

	 Leaving that history aside what is more important is that in pursuit of
its mission the troika faces several problems. The first, in terms of the
multistakeholder policy making process of ICANN, is that it is the weakest
leg of the process stool. The troika represents the concerns and interests
of its constituencies. The troika cannot represent its constituencies the
way the contracted parties, non-contracted parties, or GAC (in its special
relationship) can and do. It has no formal induction process from its
constituency, nor does it have formal accountability to its constituency.  

	 Think of the troika as a valiant and under resourced band of public
interest volunteers. Some of that band of have managed to wed career
advancement to troika service and sustain engagement. Most (particularly
those from marginalized communities) have not. One result is that the more
marginalized within the volunteer constituency face greater obstacles,
resulting in lower virtual and literal participation. The troika frequently
pleas for additional ICANN resource support to address this challenge. 

	The troika has difficulty providing adequate volunteer labor to serve is
role in terms of ICANN PDP working group and document comment demands. The
troika has difficulty recruiting candidates for the necessary positions
dictated by the troika structure, by the demands of the GNSO, and for other
ICANN activities.  

	 Despite the millions of constituent organizations and individuals that
fall within the troika's mission and remit, the troika has difficulty
recruiting adequate new members to each of its three components. Lastly,
while we hope we are voicing the concerns of the wider ngo and civil
society community, it is only our voice, translating what we perceive to be
their concerns into our words. Better engagement and empowerment would be
to give them more direct access to the microphone so they could express
their concerns and we could be more accountable. 

	 Given this situation what can be done? There is a way forward and it
draws on organizational wisdom found in other areas of human endeavor. In
business it is the issue of too many managers and too few workers. In
government: too many bureaucrats and too few front-line workers. In the
military: too many generals and not enough soldiers. In the troika this is
further complicated by the fact that those in administrative positions also
do double duty as front-line workers in ICANN’s policy development and
other processes.  

	 The troika as now constituted demands multiple chairs, with multiple
executive, policy, membership, finance, and other standing committee
demands. All of this from a mainly self-selected membership community of
around 300 members, where around ten to fifteen percent actively contribute
volunteer labor to the administration of the troika, to the obligations it
faces to the GNSO, to the all-important policy development process and to
related working group and organizational matters. This at the same time it
hopes that it is adequately and properly representing the ngo interests of
tens of thousands of organizations, and the public interest concerns of
hundreds of millions of global citizens.   

	 While it is easier to fill positions that come with benefits such as
attendance at ICANN meetings and strategic planning sessions, there is
still a two-part bias against constituency member engagement. First,
personal financial constraints and work requirements make it harder to
accept elected positions. In other ICANN constituencies participation is
usually part of one’s job description. Second, the organizational
structure of the troika results in a considerable portion of ICANN travel
support going to those in executive positions, offering less incentive for
PDP/working group engagement. As well, for some it is less rewarding to
participate in ICANN tasks without the benefit of face-to-face engagement
at global ICANN meetings. This disincentive may grow as virtual meetings
replace global face-to-face meetings. 

	 Of the 300 or so members within the troika about 50 sustain relative
activity about half of that number that are highly active. Some of the
“highly active” represent people with relative, if basic, financial
positions and personal work obligations that allow, and may benefit from,
participation. Others face engagement levels constrained by finances and
work obligations. For those who hold membership but are relatively
inactive, we have little information. Many may have expected more when they
joined  

	 What is the way forward? The troika should hold an internal consultation
to consider re-constituting the troika as a single structure. This would
reduce the number of “generals” and the make benefits of participation
more available to “foot soldier volunteers” engaged in the work of
ICANN. There were historical reasons for creating the NCUC+NCSG+NPOC
troika. The overall mission and remit remain but there is no reason for the
troika to remain as structured. 

	 The troika should initiate a cross-the-troika discussion looking at
reorganizing the three administrative structures into a single
administrative structure. This would free up more volunteer labor,
currently shackled with administrative duties (replicated across the
troika). More labor could do more in the substantive work of stakeholder
engagement in ICANN's core DNS business. A single lean administrative
structure also removes the unproductive occasional competition and
bickering between the constituencies within the troika. 

	 This re-organization alone would not fully meet ICANN's and the
constituencies efforts to increase the participation from the global
constituency, and from marginalized DNS communities and individuals. This
is an efficiency proposal. Greater participation is a separate challenge. 

	 In conclusion, the proposal here is for the troika to open an internal
discussion to consider re-structuring NCSG, NCUC and NPOC into a single
administrative structure. How to do this, and what it would be called would
be part of that discussion. A single structure would produce more scope for
volunteer non-profit and civil society engagement in the core work of ICANN
while at the same time presenting a more clearly defined single entity for
expanding engagement by the wider global non-profit and civil society
constituency.  

	 Sam Lanfranco, NPOC 
	  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20200710/a47a99b9/attachment.htm>