A Proposal to Merge NCSG, NCUC and NPOC for More Efficiency in ICANN=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=99s_?=DNS Work
Stephanie E Perrin
stephanie at DIGITALDISCRETION.CA
Sun Jul 12 08:48:51 EEST 2020
I think this is absolutely the way to go forward. In my opinion, we
could add policy related tasks to some of the regional representative
positions and EC members, through procedures (i.e. without changing the
Charters). As long as NPOC and NCUC continue to get along and can put
their shoulders to the wheel in terms of work distribution, we could
achieve more results and produce better pdp work and comments without
getting rid of the constituencies.
As James Gannon has pointed out, there are only a few people doing most
of the actual work. I can personally attest to the fact that if you
expect the Chair of NCSG to attend all the required SG meetings, do all
the admin work for NCSG, attend the Council meetings and our policy
committee, participate in the drafting of our common statements, and
also staff a couple of pdps and review committees.....like the RDS
Review II where I was alone in representing the civil society interest
and we were travelling all over for yet more meetings....you are
dreaming. Every NCSG Chair that I have talked to recently has found it
a heavy burden. We know that the PDP work and Review team work is very
heavy, yet we expect our leaders to participate. Personally, I have put
up with quite a few complaints from fellow EPDP members that I have not
written or led our comments....just for the benefit of those not paying
attention, those meetings have been twice a week, for 2 hours, with
review homework and complex legal opinions arriving the night before, or
on Friday night so you have something to work on over the weekend.
Coordinating our response among the 6 full time members and our 3
alternates would be a worthy admin task to outsource to someone less
busy, just as one example of the kind of help we need.
As Raphael has pointed out, all of our public facing web presence
materials are out of date. Folks are quick to criticize if one of us
(cough cough) relies on them and produces inaccurate summaries or
decisions, but very slow to volunteer to help.
There are plenty of other more pressing issues that I as a privacy
advocate and expert ought to be focusing on (long list available if
anyone is interested, oversight of facial recognition systems and AI
being the top two at the moment). However, I am deeply concerned that
this organization which I love, despite all its warts and foibles, is
decreasing in its effectiveness and impact at ICANN. Yes it is true
that the bigger picture is that ICANN is overdue for a reorganization
itself. We need to get our act together before that, so that we can
ensure we don't get written out of existence.
Returning to Tomslin's point, travel support is not currently available
for mentors and committee chairs, other than on a trial or exceptional
basis. This is a problem we could rectify by ensuring that our elected
representatives in admin positions are taking on these tasks. If we
list the job descriptions and hourly workload of the various positions
which Rafik outlined in his list of funded NCSG travellers, and compare
that to the hours and tasks assigned to PDP and review team workers, we
will see the stark reality of how we distribute our workoad. Most of
us, I believe, still regard ICANN travel as a perc. It is certainly one
way we recognize the unpaid work that many of us are doing on the PDPs,
and given that this unpaid work is likely to be invisible to most in a
new, virtual meetings world, I do worry how many are dedicated enough to
the cause to continue.
Kind regards,
Stephanie Perrin
On 2020-07-11 10:34 p.m., Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>> on behalf of Stephanie
> E Perrin <stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA>>
> *Reply to: *Stephanie E Perrin
> <stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA>>
> *Date: *Saturday, 11 July 2020 at 19:19
> *To: *"NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>"
> <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> <mailto: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> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto:dgdorothydg at GMAIL.COM>>
> *To*: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> <mailto: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/20200712/14e5c2ae/attachment.htm>
More information about the Ncsg-discuss
mailing list