Follow Up and Further Reflections on Consolidating NCSG, NCUC and NPOC

[Sam Lanfranco]

	 Colleagues, 

	This is a follow up to my earlier posting in which I suggested that we
should consider the possible benefits, in terms of both efficiency and
effectiveness,  of consolidating NCSG, NCUC, and NPOC (the ‘troika’)
into a single constituency organization with a single administrative
structure.  

	I would like to thank the colleagues who expressed views, opinions, and
concerns, and thank all for the questions raised in the discussion. To move
the discussion forward I will organize these comments in the following
manner. First, what would be the objectives of restructuring the troika
into a single organization? Second, prior to a sustained (working group)
process what appear to be the major issues and concerns around such a move?
Lastly, what might be an efficient and doable development process to
consider a single administrative structure?  

	When considering the impact of a consolidated troika, consider membership.
We have a nominal troika membership of around 800 members, measurable
engagement by about 200 members and active engagement by somewhere between
50 and 100 members. Our breadth and depth of representation is woefully
small given the size of our global constituency community as defined by our
Charters. As well, we can only represent the interests of our constituency.
 We cannot represent the constituency per se since there is no delegation
process and little if any formal constituency accountability for our
participation. (In contrast, a recent Covid-19/DNS Webinar participant from
an ICANN non-contracted party group had to obtain organizational permission
to just participate, since they would be seen to represent the views of the
organization.) In contrast, practically everyone within the troika operates
as a well intended relatively free agent.  

	Given the substantially identical mission and vision of the three troika
members in ICANN’s DNS mandate, and the limited success of individual
membership growth efforts by the troika and ICANN, a consolidated
recruitment strategy, along with better opportunities for engagement,
should strengthen the scope, depth and engagement of constituency members. 

	Another impact of a consolidated troika would be the reduction of
administrative positions across the three entities by two-thirds and reduce
the challenges to securing adequate candidates for administrative
positions. One Executive Committee, one Policy Committee, one Membership
Committee, etc., would free up dedicated volunteers to focus on policy
development and other ICANN related work tasks. It would also reduce the
demand on ICANN technical and administrative support to administer three
sets of elections, constituency meetings (literal and online) and such.
This reduced demand for ICANN resources could be negotiated into other more
effective forms of ICANN support for the work of the consolidated
constituency entity.   

	This line of thought could be expanded further but I think that the
efficiency elements are obvious. and the broader scope for work engagement
(and participatory effectiveness) are clearly possible. 

	During discussions over the past two weeks several concerns were raised
regarding the idea of consolidation. Overall, they boiled down to two
concerns. One concern was would the consolidated entity have reduced
influence in ICANN and in its decision making in comparison to the
influence from current troika. The other was a concern that the
consolidated entity might secure less financial/material support from
ICANN. Both of these issues can be the subject of further discussion going
forward but I would argue that consolidation would have the opposite
effects, it would enhance our influence within ICANN, and ICANN would be in
a position to more effectively support our work and engagement in ICANN
affairs.   

	Questions were raised about the complexity and timelines involved in the
development of a charter for a consolidated entity. The slow pace of recent
charter updates is not an indicator of the speed with which a consolidated
entity charter could be developed. A synthesis based on the three existing
charters, with their existing similarities, should be able to proceed at a
quick pace, most likely being completed in less than a year. 

	The remaining question is whether there is the political will within the
three entities (NCSG, NCUC, NPOC) to undertake a serious effort at
consolidation, and how might that effort start. It is up to each of the
three entities to decide if it has to political will to embark on a
consolidation effort.  

	Part of a discussion about a commitment to explore consolidation would
also involve where and how to start. Here are some possible ideas, but the
process to be used would have to come from the dialogue across the three
entities. One starting point would be for each entity to decide to explore
the consolidation option. Its Executive Committee could then assign
delegates to a tripartite committee that designs the process for moving
forward. For example, each entity could appoint one or two members to work
on a consolidated entity charter, to be produced with the standard
procedures for charter development. Each entity could appoint a member as
part of a resource support committee to engage with ICANN on ways to
redeploy adequate ICANN support to the constituency. None of this need be
burdensome and the troika with greater interim cooperation could proceed
with improving constituency efficiency and effectiveness dealing with the
standard work of working groups, review comments and other matters of ICANN
business. 

	In conclusion, the starting point is for the membership of the
constituencies to express their views to their respective executive
committees in order to signal that the community has the political will to
move forward on efforts at consolidation, and for the respective executive
committees to act on behalf of the will of their respective memberships.
Constituency leadership could facilitate this process by being proactive in
querying entity membership. 
	My hope is that we can move to a single larger constituency structure, a
structure that serves the interests of our constituency and operates more
efficiently and effectively within its role as an ICANN constituency group.

	Sam Lanfranco, NPOC/NCSG
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20200720/b9c73402/attachment.htm>