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

[Arsène Tungali]

Good point!

On Sat, Jul 11, 2020, 8:47 PM James Gannon <lists at icann.guru> wrote:

> I certainly would like to support work on this going forward, with the
> caveat that I would like to see any work on this being focused strongly
> around reducing the amount of administrative positions we have to a minimum
> and instating additional support roles dedicated to actual real policy work
> on the ground. We are far too heavy on regional and administrative roles
> that are unrelated to our policy work, whereas refactoring that to diverse
> policy roles with clear roles and responsibilities and accountabilities to
> deliver on policy work, be that policy and position papers, active work on
> PDPs or other similar outcomes related measurements. If we don’t frame any
> such structural change around that goal set then we will be doomed to just
> repeat the situation we are already in, just under one banner.
>
>
>
> ---
>
> *James Gannon*
>
>
>
> *From: *NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> on behalf of
> Stephanie E Perrin <stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA>
> *Reply to: *Stephanie E Perrin <stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA>
> *Date: *Saturday, 11 July 2020 at 19:19
> *To: *"NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
> *Subject: *Re: A Proposal to Merge NCSG, NCUC and NPOC for More
> Efficiency in ICANN’s DNS Work
>
>
>
> First, I would like to thank Sam for his thoughtful and thorough post
> which started this discussion.  It is long overdue, in my opinion.
>
> As Sam indicated, our history show that we have had quite a bit of
> friction and fruitless arguing over the arrival of NPOC and the
> readjustment of the former NCUC and the new NCSG to include the new
> constituency.  NPOC itself has gone through a fair bit of soul searching as
> it developed its new Charter.  I am personally very happy that the current
> management team, Joan Kerr, Bruna Santos, and I have got along very
> amicably and cooperated, particularly during this last difficult year.  I
> think it has helped engender the trust and thoughtful discussion that might
> actually allow us to talk about the pros and cons of this "merger".
>
> As Raymond pointed out, however, NCSG as the overall body which elects 6
> councillors to the GNSO, already exists.  Any councillor represents NCSG,
> not his or her chosen constituency.
>
> I had intended to advance on this discussion during my tenure as NCSG
> Chair, but circumstances have not favored the introduction of such
> discussions. However, we are now facing a dramatic re-imagining of how
> ICANN is going to do business, and potential travel restrictions for a long
> time to come.  It is a great time to talk about different ways of being a
> successful stakeholder group, and perhaps developing different roles for
> some of our elected leaders, rather than simply repeating administrative
> functions.  This is particularly important, given the scarcity of
> volunteers actively working on policy issues.  I will put together a google
> document with pros and cons, as Dorothy suggested, and post it to the list.
>
> Thanks to Raph for digging out more correct numbers, I will check the
> membership lists and get back to you all with the precise numbers.
>
> Stephanie Perrin
>
> NCSG Chair
>
>
>
> On 2020-07-11 10:49 a.m., Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Just for the record, all in all ncsg is in the 800 members range,
> including orgs and individual members. But I see that we need to update
> certain public-facing pages in that regard. It's been noted and will be
> acted upon as far as NCSG is concerned.
>
>
>
> I'm also looking forward to a plan regarding Sam's proposal, that aligns
> identified issues and their proposed solution. Like many others I'm not
> against a merger, on the contrary rather. But it would necessarily be a
> long process, and it must be one carried forward by a group of dedicated
> members and not by the ECs as ECs (and maybe not even by EC members as
> individuals, depending on charter language). Not only is this a charter
> requirement like James pointed out, but it is also a long-term legitimacy
> requirement.
>
>
>
> And it must be a process that will aim to solve concrete issues we are
> facing. For example: if we have a problem with allocation of travel
> support, a big merger in itself will not solve this, but changes to the
> travel support policy of SG and Cs will.
>
>
>
> Have a nice weekend,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2020, 10:02 James Gannon <lists at icann.guru>
> <lists at icann.guru> wrote:
>
> In the last election we had 240 voters. Of which I would estimate 15% are
> actually involved in any work.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> On 11 Jul 2020, at 14:53, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:
>
> 
>
> Dorothy, et. al.,
>
>
>
> I could be way off on membership. Better indicators are active
> participation and voter turnout.
>
> The ICANNWiki pages for NCSG, NCUC are one or two years out of date. NCSC
> claims 500 members
>
> The NPOC ICANNWiki page is up to data and links to a list of 100 members.
>
>
>
> Not counting those who are just NCSG members we are in the 600 claimed
> member range.
>
> Without diminishing the heroic work of NCSG/NCUC/NPOC volunteers, that
> still leaves us a
>
> weak leg on the ICANN multistakeholder stool.
>
>
>
> Sam
>
> ---- Original Message ----
> *From*: dorothy g <dgdorothydg at GMAIL.COM>
> *To*: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> *Sent*: Sat, Jul 11, 2020, 9:29 AM
> *Subject*: Re: A Proposal to Merge NCSG, NCUC and NPOC for More
> Efficiency in ICANN’s DNS Work
>
> I agree.  If someone could help us with a table of pros and cons
>
> I was also surprised that the total membership is only around 300?
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20200711/a3c02169/attachment.htm>