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

[Stephanie E Perrin]

I believe Nadira suggested we form a working group to examine the 
possibilities, risks and advantages of how to improve our effectiveness 
whilst examining our structures.  Those interested in the Charters of 
other SGs in the GNSO may be interested in the recently amended Charter 
of the RySG.  Obviously, we are very different than the Registries, but 
their Charter encompasses the vast range of economic size, from gigantic 
to very small, and recognizes "interest groups".  It is here 
https://84e2b371-5c03-4c5c-8c68-63869282fa23.filesusr.com/ugd/ec8e4c_636d8dfd3f68430f97f41f86ffbae167.pdf

Let me know if you are interested in joining a working group that would 
examine our Charters and see what can be done simply to improve our 
situation.  The example Bruna gives below, of limiting CROP grants to 
those who are participating in PDPs is a good one, in my opinion we 
should be looking for easy ways to improve and reward participation, 
before we start changing our structures.

As Rafik pointed out, we have support from the GNSO Secretariat in the 
form of Maryam Bakoshi.  Let me assure you, we would be lost without 
her, her work for us in organizing meetings, arranging for 
teleconference facilities, keeping the leadership team on a timetable, 
administering elections, supporting working groups, liaising with other 
responsibility centres in ICANN etc. should not be underestimated.  She 
supports all three groups, the two constituencies and the NCSG.  
Minimizing needless duplication of her efforts ought to be a goal, in my 
opinion.

Kind regards,

Stephanie Perrin

On 2020-07-13 12:24 a.m., Bruna Martins dos Santos wrote:
> Dear Sam and all,
>
> Some of my initial reflections on this matter:
>
> First of all thank you Sam for raising this question/proposal.  
> Thinking about a better division of the work and fine lining the 
> capacities of each representative across constituencies is something 
> that has been discussed by a few of us either in the context of 
> elections or in other times. A proposal like yours has interesting 
> background points such as reassessing NCSG organizational divisions 
> and also our constituencies and SG's efficiency.
>
> Something I would add to the list of 'things we need to work on' would 
> be inreaching efforts or anything that would help us rebuild our 
> community is something I also see as necessary. Apart from recruiting 
> new members, reaching out to the current ones and providing them with 
> any necessary support for their engagement with our internal 
> discussions and PDPs should be a goal to the/troika. /
>
> But, as Benjamin, I am afraid that putting the three together might 
> result in having our influence shrinked. Having different structures 
> and missions under the NCSG umbrella is something that can be 
> beneficial to our participation at ICANN, we just need to realign our 
> goals.
>
> In terms of travel support/prioritizing Policy work, I can only speak 
> on behalf of NCUC but for the past 2 years the allocation of CROP 
> slots had as a prerequisite the applicants involvement with PDPs as an 
> acknowledgement to the hard work conducted by our PDP members. But 
> considering that we will not have F2F meetings in the near future and 
> considering ICANN's proposal of a phased return to meetings - among 
> other reasons -, I would not focus any discussions regarding possible 
> restructuration of NCSG solely on access to travel resources.
>
> As much as I recognize that the policy work is one of the most 
> relevant things the three groups can perform I would not focus NCSGs 
> travel resources exclusively on them because there is a fair amount of 
> tasks of other nature that are still needed and often overlooked - and 
> by that I mean administrative work, allocation of resources and even 
> outreach work that is relevant to renewing our membership. These 
> activities are also relevant and anyone who has been in an 
> administrative position before can understand how overwhelming they 
> can be.
>
> Last but not least, considering the unique moment we are at, I believe 
> that reviewing our participation in meetings and coming up with a NCSG 
> strategy to virtual meetings would be more valuable to our SG. Our 
> focus should be improving our participation in meetings, discussing if 
> and how we should be participating at them, what sorts of C's meetings 
> are worth including in the agenda and so on.
>
> But, as I mentioned above, your proposal has some interesting points 
> and maybe, starting with a reassessment of NCSG/NPOC/NCUC efficiency 
> and participation levels can be a start.
>
> Best regards,
> Bruna Santos
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20200713/4353f6d0/attachment.htm>