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

Sun Jul 12 21:01:12 EEST 2020


> On 12 Jul 2020, at 9:48 pm, Stephanie E Perrin <stephanie at DIGITALDISCRETION.CA> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
I agree that having the admin positions take a more direct role in policy work is an idea worth exploring. 
The idea of read outs, where several funded travellers have responsibilities for communicating back to the community, summarising parts of the meeting, is possible idea? Perhaps even a bit coordinated, so we can make sure we have people at some less attended meetings to report back?
> As James Gannon has pointed out, there are only a few people doing most of the actual work.
> 
Absolutely. And it is a problem. And many of those doing the actual work are burned out or stretched to their limit. 
> 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.
> 
To clarify a little for the benefit of those reading who haven’t been funded travellers - while travel can certainly be enjoyable, and a real bonus at times, I certainly hope that in NCSG we are keeping to the attitude that travel is to do the work primarily. That every funded traveller should attend all the meetings associated with their role, and frankly as many other meetings as they can usefully contribute to, and try to deliver maximum value to NCSG. I know you and I, and the majority of our funded travellers, do this. Even the fun social parts of an ICANN meeting are potentially valuable - they are how we build working relationships with our colleagues, in and out of NCSG. 
It is good that t they are enjoyable and give people who have put in hours working for free some reward. But we need to keep that attitude that the official ICANN meeting days are a work trip. The ability to extend a trip at personal expense is a perq, and a welcome one - the actual trip is an opportunity to work hard! I’ve had a lot of fun on ICANN trips for sure - but I’ve also found myself without exception exhausted at the end of a hard trip. I really don’t want to give people the impression that anyone should seek funded travel for its own sake, or that they should go on a funded trip to ICANN without expecting to spend most of it working. 
>   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.
> 
That's true. And also - our counterparts will probably have some opportunities to travel, at more regional events such as NamesCon, INTA, etc and will have opportunities to meet and organise. It puts us at a disadvantage if we do not. 

David
> 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> <mailto: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/20200712/096cbe2e/attachment.htm>