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

[Olivier Kouami]

Greetings all
Hi dear Sam. Your proposal has a sense. But, who will do this kind of job ?
It's took more than 3 years to review only the NPOC constitution.

+1 at James.

And the more time passes, the less I see or perceive the real difference
between NPOC and NCUC, since the latter also includes non-profit
organizations as the NPOC. NCSG alone is sufficient, in realty.
MHO.
Olévié
Kind regards

Le 10 juil. 2020 17:07, "james at icann.guru" <lists at icann.guru> a écrit :

> I would not be averse to it at all, however the challenge will be who is
> willing to put in the years of work to make it happen.
>
> *---*
> *James Gannon*
>
> On 7/10/2020 6:02:41 PM, Raymond Mamattah <mamattah.raymond at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> Hello Sam,
>
> Since all NPOC and NCUC members are automatic members of NCSG I think to
> an extent that merger is already there.
>
> In my views it should remain as it's.
>
> Regards
> Raymond Mamattah
>
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 4:14 PM Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:
>
>>  *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/b2d62130/attachment.htm>