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

[Joan Kerr]

Thanks Jacqueline,

I totally agree with you.  What problem are we solving, is a merger the
best answer, how does the merger benefit the members.  The question is how
can we work more cooperatively while retaining the respective
Constituencies obligations to its members and ICANN.

As I mentioned in the NPOC EC meeting today, we can define some of the
administrative tasks that have the same goals and work together on
those-Member engagement, education, comments, mentorship etc.

We are now with a solution in search of the problem.  Which problem.
Regards,



On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 11:33 AM Jacqueline Morris <jam at jacquelinemorris.com>
wrote:

> Hi everyone
> It's an interesting discussion.
> I think that we've jumped into discussing one particular solution (merger)
> without first really examining the problems that need to be solved. I think
> that it would help us to take a step back, look carefully at the issues,
> which seem to me to include
> 1) Current members low engagement in policy work
> 2) Administrative overload for Maryam and the members of the various ECs
> 3) Need to grow the membership base (new members)
> 4) To develop and maintain a strong voice in ICANN for our stakeholders
> etc
> And see where there are simple, easy, cooperative solutions.
>
> At first glance I can see that there are several areas in which there can
> be cooperative solutions, where each member of the troika can work
> together. For example, education for members on policy and other issues,
> joint outreach to attract new members, maybe merging some
> administrative tasks. With regard to some of what Benjamin referred to:*such
> as social media or website workgroup, welfare committee, diversity
> committee, outreach committee, education or e-learning committee, social
> affairs committee, conflicts resolutions " *- these could be joint
> committees.
> This can happen without erasing the particular focused voice of each
> constituency via a merger.
>
> If  a working group is created, I think that the mandate should be
> directed towards defining and analysing the problems and finding solutions,
> but not towards  figuring out a way to merge at this time. It's far too
> early to determine that a merger is the solution, and personally, I think
> that the work involved in merging would probably be worse for member
> engagement and policy work. It would be a long slog of administrative
> stuff, and that doesn't excite anyone or motivate them to participate, and
> merging would also focus the admittedly few resources on that, and even
> less on the already heavy policy workload.
>
> Regards
> Jacqueline A. Morris
> Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible and
> Free. (after Chris Lehmann <http://twitter.com/chrislehmann> )
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 4:14 PM Remmy Nweke <remmyn at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>   Thanks Sam for this proposal and those who have commented so far.
>>
>> Noteworthy is that the journey has been dramatic both in transparency and
>> accountability which needed to be addressed if any attempt to reverse the
>> stage will take place and eventually make sense, let alone becoming
>> successful.
>>
>> Maybe we should explore other templates like what ALAC is using to
>> further streamline the engagement and ensure that those in the continental
>> wings  play by the rules.
>>
>> With regards to having NPOC charter on going for three years+ is about
>> the game of leadership because of that period, if not 1/3 used should have
>> taken care of that.
>>
>> As for the harmonisation under NCSG; it must be embedded with
>> transparency and accountability and well defined as well as leadership
>> willingliness (political will) of the troika plus the pro and cons coming
>> with timelines.
>> Regards
>> ____
>> REMMY NWEKE, mNGE,
>> Lead Consulting Strategist/Group Executive Editor,
>> DigitalSENSE Africa Media [*Multiple-award winning medium*]
>> (DigitalSENSE Business News
>> <http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng/businessnews>; ITREALMS
>> <http://www.itrealms.com.ng>, NaijaAgroNet
>> <http://www.naijaagronet.com.ng>)
>> Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza, Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos
>> M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms
>> <http://www.twitter.com/ITRealms>
>> Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria
>> <https://www.facebook.com/adecadeofictreportageinnigeria%E2%80%8E>
>>
>> *2020 Nigeria DigitalSENSE Forum on IG4D & Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable
>> <http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng>*
>> JOIN us!!
>>
>> *Vice President, African Civil Society on the Information Society (ACSIS
>> <http://www.acsis-scasi.org/en/>)
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and
>> attachments are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is
>> intended only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not
>> accept legal responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not
>> the intended recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this
>> document and do not disclose the contents of this document to any other
>> person, nor make any copies. Violators may face court persecution.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 5:16 PM Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

-- 

Joan Kerr, Entrepreneur, Artist, Humanitarian

_____________________________________

Chair, Climate Smart Victory Garden Team

Chair, ICANN, Not for Profit Operations Constituency

Chair, IEEE Sustainable Agriculture Working Group

Chair, Science for Peace, Climate Smart Victory Gardens

Advisor, IEEE Humanitarian Initiatives Committee

Advisor, Climate Smart Agriculture Youth Network, (CSAYN) Canada

UN WSIS Award Recipient, for Content & Creativity

Durham Region Recipient, Community Partnership Award

Founder, Foundation for Building Sustainable Communities

www.joankerr.ca, www.fbsc.org

Skype: joankerr_fbsc

1-416-907-0783
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20200721/eb0f1586/attachment.htm>