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

[Jacqueline Morris]

HI Sam
One thought - you refer to travel AND support. But travel IS support  -
travel to meetings is not a perk, it is simply another tool to get the work
done. It should absolutely not be used to "reward" or "recognise" anyone.
Honestly, over the years during which I've traveled to many ICANN meetings,
I have to take vacation when I return home to recover from the extremely
long days and constant work that the ICANN meetings require.
If travel stops being considered a perk or reward, but rather a tool, I
think that the entire discussion will shift focus to a more practical
approach.
Regards

Jacqueline A. Morris
Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible and
Free. (after Chris Lehmann <http://twitter.com/chrislehmann> )


On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 12:15 PM Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:

> 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/20200712/276561c5/attachment.htm>