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

Sun Jul 12 21:58:02 EEST 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.

*Thank you for raising the issue Prof and I believe every view always has
an opposing perspective or some other viewpoints, so expecting some
resistance is only natural as long as it requires a change.*

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.

*I beg to disagree with this, in comparison to other SGs, this will only
diminish our influence and number of participants even further, except a
new mode of representation is recommended, maybe more along the line of
regions or thematic interests.*

*The mission of NCUC and NPOC appeared to have been separated in two places
one is pursuing internet users and the other NGOs.  There are differences
in their missions at a granular level and if each group was to be held
accountable, both have a decent amount of job to take on. Imagine, NCUC  is
able to reach all civil society members, activists, academics, etc across
the globe, who are using the Internet or the DNS for noncommercial
purposes. Or let us just imagine that NPOC is also able to reach all NGOs
globally and elicit their concerns about DNS. That job is yet to be done.*

 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.

*Historically, why were other groups created outside of NCUC?  Have the
purposes for their creation evaporated? I believe we should look for ways
to enhance the model , the system  is evolving*

 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.

*The NCSG can still be the weakest link if the root cause is not properly
addressed after a  merger is carried out. As far as I am concerned, the
merger will only shrink the space. I am for creating more space for
participation.  I suggest we treat the root cause and not the symptoms.*

 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
pleads for additional ICANN resource support to address this challenge.

The troika has difficulty providing adequate volunteer labor to serve its
role in terms of the 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.

*I will tag the troika's difficulty, the challenge NCSG has to confront,
how do we incentivize the NCSG workload?  As far as I am concerned, there
are ample travel slots put out as incentives for members to participate in
the PDP and there have been different occasions where it went almost
unutilized.  I also there is a lot of sacrifices involved in attending
ICANN meetings, for those coming from Africa, you have to invest up to six
months depending on the venue of the meetings, make multiple other travels
beyond the ICANN meetings to get visas, secure leave days, make expenses
that may not be refunded. Also, write reports if you get a CROP allocation.
It is not as fancy as it looks. At least from my personal experiences.*

 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.

*The different subunits I believe is also an attempt to create operating
units for individual members to engage actively.  If we compare what we
used to have in the time past, few members were in any committee, in fact,
we still need more subunit, such as social media or website workgroup,
welfare committee, diversity committee, outreach committee, education or
e-learning committee, social affairs committee, conflicts resolutions -
this way there is a place for each member to the plugin.*

 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.

As much as I do like to agree with this point, no one comes to ICANN first
to get benefits, you start remotely and work your way to fitting into  the
opportunities. If one is interested, either through hard work or share
luck, ICANN meeting attendance will be realized.

*However, my challenge is the old member's attrition,  those with
valuable experiences who walk away from the group after serving their term
in a position to other stakeholders or away from active participation. *

*Also, how do we draw attention to PDP just the way this mail has drawn a
handful of reactions. Is the mailing list still the best way to engage?  *

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

*The number we see is a result of the many outreaches we have done, if we
cast our focus to engage, this pool of members in a few months from now,
the outcome will be different. There is a chance we will see more
engagement. This is not out of place, it is always the case in many
volunteer online groups or mailing lists.*

 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 way forward is to develop a simple matrix and accountability mechanism
that identifies what needs to be done and distribute it appropriately with
proper timelines. This paragraph is rather contradictory if the reasons for
creating the groups still exist, then how come the structure should change?
If they structure then the need seems gone except if they will be replaced
by another structure.*

 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.

*I beg to differ on this, I will rather subscribe to a call for the three
administrative groups re-engineer for efficiency and reach out to their
stakeholders' group to elicit real issues of their stakeholders in order to
represent them properly. Also, where are the veterans, how can we re-engage
them and tap from their knowledge base?  *

 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.

*Prof in order to review efficiency we must look at available data and see
how effective the group has worked. Rafik's responses gave a glimpse of
that, I think we should do more audit and propose models we are willing to
experiment with before going on the route of merging.*

Finally

 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.

*Thank you, prof, for starting this conversation and it is not a simple one
to have, especially in such an unusual season as this.*

* Sam Lanfranco, NPOC*

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 3:57 AM David Cake <dave at davecake.net> wrote:

> Absolutely agree. When I plan for ICANN trips now, I normally presume that
> at least one day after the meeting will be spent more or less in complete
> exhaustion, and assume it will be at least  a week until I feel recovered
> (even for trips without jet lag).
>
> Extending your travel at your own expense so you can spend some of that
> recovery time somewhere interesting is a perq. The actual meeting should
> have parts that are fun, for sure (which doesn’t mean they aren’t useful
> too). But they should mostly be hard work.
>
> David
>
> On 13 Jul 2020, at 5:28 am, Jacqueline Morris <jam at JACQUELINEMORRIS.COM>
> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20200712/529b49d8/attachment.htm>