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

Sun Jul 12 11:58:16 EEST 2020

Thanks

El dom., 12 jul. 2020 a las 13:16, Sam Lanfranco (<lanfran at yorku.ca>)
escribió:

> This is a short response to Tapani's comments.
>
> If we undertake a formal exploration of ways for the troika to both be
> more efficient in doing ICANN's DNS work, and examine alternative ways to
> use ICANN's resources in our work on a more equitable and efficient, and
> include with that an examination of possible merger/consolidation options,
> we should come through that with structures and processes that better use
> our resources and those of ICANN.
>
> Consider the ICANN resources that go into multiple parallel elections,
> multiple online constituency sessions (literal or virtual) during ICANN
> Conferences, and similar back-office demands on ICANN resources.
> Consultation with ICANN on resource issues, for both travel and support,
> would be integral to the process.
>
> Sam L.
>
>
> ---- Original Message ----
> *From*: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
> *To*: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> *Sent*: Sun, Jul 12, 2020, 10:43 AM
> *Subject*: Re: A Proposal to Merge NCSG, NCUC and NPOC for More
> Efficiency in ICANN’s DNS Work
>
> Hi Tomslin,
>
> That is indeed the key problem here: too many executive positions
> vying for travel support that'd be more urgently needed for people
> doing policy work.
>
> But to do what Sam proposes in The Right Way (tm) would mean changes
> all the way up to ICANN Bylaws, we'd have to get CSG to agree etc - it
> would be a long road.
>
> However, something could be done without such heavy bureaucracy,
> if NCUC and NPOC were to agree. A few ideas:
>
> * Make a rule that NCSG EC members are also constituency EC members.
> The workload in NCSG EC isn't all that great, and that would reduce
> the number of executive positions vying for travel support by four.
> It might be best to make it automatic, tied to constituency elections;
> in NPOC they could be tied to specific roles in the ExCom (say, Vice
> Chair and Secretary), in NCUC maybe simply the two EC members who get
> most votes.
>
> * Change travel policies so that NCSG EC members do not get travel
> support by virtue of that position (they could of course still travel
> on constituency slots) and instead use the NCSG travel slots for people
> doing policy work, e.g., those NCSG PC members who aren't councillors,
> or others involved in important working groups or the like.
>
> * Start holding joint EC meetings. Perhaps first just invite all
> constituency EC members to NCSG EC meetings, with the goal of
> eventually holding no constituency-specific EC meetings at all.
>
> Those should achieve most of the goals Sam outlines without any loss
> of total travel support and be doable without heavy bureaucracy or
> changes in bylaws. Indeed I think just the respective ECs could do it
> by defining suitable internal rules and procedures.
>
> So it would just require NCUC and NPOC to agree (which admittedly
> might not be all that easy).
>
> And it would not prevent or hinder any attempts to get a more formal
> change done, on the contrary if such a cooperation would work it
> could pave way for changes in charters and bylaws.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 07:02:27PM +1000, Tomslin Samme-Nlar (
> mesumbeslin at GMAIL.COM) wrote:
> >
> > Hi Glenn,
> >
> > I think the hint is in this portion of Sam's proposal, "*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*".
> >
> > Travel policy will have to change, with the funds/slots reassigned to
> "foot
> > soldier volunteers".
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Tomslin
> >
> >
> > On Sat., 11 Jul. 2020, 09:47 Glenn Ricart, <gricart at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Can we simplify without losing influence and/or funding?
> > >
> > > Glenn
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 11:02 AM Niels ten Oever <
> > > lists at digitaldissidents.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Dear Sam, hi all,
> > >>
> > >> I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit of your proposal. Every time
> this
> > >> proposal is brought up though, the response is: but this will result
> in a
> > >> smaller number of seats (and thus influence) and (travel) funding.
> > >>
> > >> Whereas we should try to prevent this decrease in influence and
> > >> resources, I actually the merger should take place anyhow because it
> would
> > >> result in an enormous increase in terms of efficiency and a decrease
> in
> > >> bureaucracy and opacity.
> > >>
> > >> Best,
> > >>
> > >> Niels
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 7/10/20 6:13 PM, Sam Lanfranco 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
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Niels ten Oever
> > >> Researcher and PhD Candidate - DATACTIVE Research Group - University
> of
> > >> Amsterdam
> > >> Postdoctoral Scholar (abd) - Communications Department - Texas A&M
> > >> University
> > >> Research Fellow - Centre for Internet and Human Rights - European
> > >> University Viadrina
> > >> Associated Scholar - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - Fundação
> Getúlio
> > >> Vargas
> > >>
> > >> W: https://nielstenoever.net
> > >> E: mail at nielstenoever.net
> > >> T: @nielstenoever
> > >> P/S/WA: +31629051853
> > >> PGP: 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3
> > >>
> > >
>
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20200712/7a5c83da/attachment.htm>