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

[Rafik Dammak]

One thing I overlooked is the interessional meeting between NCSG and CSG as
we didn't hold for the last 2 years. If I am not misremembering the number,
it is 2 days F2F meeting with 21 travel split as 7 slots to each group.

Best,

Rafik

On Sun, Jul 12, 2020, 14:47 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> hi all,
>
> while I don't have comments yet about the proposal, I can share some
> details about travel support and add information to share background:
>
> Travel support
> * Regular support
> 1- There are 6 travel slots for NCSG representatives to GNSO council. I
> think in terms of budget, they are assigned to GNSO council not NCSG per se
> but still any elected councillor gets to attend the 3 ICANN meetings and in
> the last 3 years the GNSO Council SPS meeting.
> 2- 3 travel slots to each group (3 for NCSG, 3 for NCUC and 3 for NPOC). I
> believe they are given to excom like for other stakeholder groups and
> constituencies. 1 slot on each group goes to the chair in practice.
> 3- There is also 1 for NCUC nomcom representative for ICANN meetings and
> other nomcom F2F meetings.
> 4- CROP travel slots for outreach and that  program went through several
> changes (I cannot recall the exact number) . It is only available to NCUC
> and NPOC and as far I recall it doesn't cover a whole ICANN meeting if a
> slot is used for that purpose.
>
> * Ad-hoc or temporary support
> Other travel support to NCSG representatives (appointed directly or
> indirectly by NCSG)
>   - travel support to any NCSG representative appointed to specific review
> teams  (ATRT, SSR RT, RDS RT, CCT) to attend their F2F meetings. The number
> of slots varies as the appointment to those review teams go through GNSO
> council.
>   - there was travel support for NCSG representatives to CCWG and CWG for
> their F2F meetings. Things are also evolving and we need to take into
> account the possible future of PDP WG. With PDP 3.0 and what was done with
> EPDP in terms of a representational model for WG, future PDPs might be
> different from what we had before. For example, we have 6 representatives
> to the EPDP team and there was a budget for that WG to have F2F meetings,
> the representatives could participate in those meetings with the travel
> support. It also covered subject to approval ICANN meetings too when there
> were EPDP sessions. That can be the case or not  in the next PDPs initiated
> by GNSO in future. PDP 3.0 indicates that requesting resources and specific
> support should be done at the chartering phase.
>
> There is also a GNSO pilot project to support WG leadership (chairs, vice
> chairs, subgroup leaders) and I believe some of our members benefited from
> it. It is not targeting NCSG but it is another opportunity for active
> volunteers.
> With covid-19, F2F meetings remain uncertain even if the proposal from
> ICANN to go back to meetings is to start first with WG or other groups
> small F2F meetings.
>
> There are other important kind of support:
> - we have admin support with Maryam , for the 3 groups. In case of having
> only NCSG, she might continue with some time allocation but also assigned
> partly to other community support decided by ICANN org .
> - we have membership database support, for each group. it should be
> checked if that will continue and to which level.
>
> Other possible resources are on demand basis and subject to approval: the
> additional budget requests in every fiscal year to fund specific activity
> , requested by NCSG, NCUC or NPOC and subject to approval by ICANN (finance
> team with consultation with others relevant department). This shouldn't
> change because of any restructuring as it depends on the nature of
> requested and proposed activities to be funded.
>
> I hope that clarifies and gives ideas about what the group gets as
> support.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> Le dim. 12 juil. 2020 à 11:38, Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin at gmail.com>
> a écrit :
>
>> It is also possible that we could break these issues into smaller ones
>> and deal with them in phases.
>> For example, it may be quicker to solve the issue of funding by looking
>> at a rework of the travel/funding policies of the stakeholder group and its
>> constituencies to increase focus on policy work than waiting for a merger
>> before looking into the issue.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Tomslin
>>
>>
>> On Sun., 12 Jul. 2020, 06:11 Arsène Tungali, <arsenebaguma at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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/20200712/23595c63/attachment.htm>