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

[dorothy g]

Will all of this not change as we move to hybrid meetings?

Should we organise a virtual intersessional?

On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 5:58 AM Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>

-- 

stay well, kind regards
Dorothy Gordon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20200712/7ae14937/attachment.htm>