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

[S EA]

Hello Sam and Fellow Members,

Diagnosing the proposal and facts put forward, I think its worth
considering for efficiency.

Best wishes.

Sonigitu Ekpe
Environmental Governance Consultant

+234 803 399 2350

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020, 17:16 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/f43476a3/attachment.htm>