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

[Raoul Plommer]

>
> 1)    Current members low engagement in policy work
>
>
>
> This would not be helped by a merger, but it would not be harmed, either.
> It’s a different issue
>

Having three ECs and ICANN supporting most of those members to live
meetings is a major difference in my view. Almost all EC members should be
concerned with policy anyway, so eradicating 2/3 of our travel slots would
likely result in even less policy activity.


>
>
> 2)    Administrative overload for Maryam and the members of the various
> ECs
>
>
>
> This most definitely WOULD be helped by a merger. One of the reasons there
> is too much administrative work is that we have duplicative, overlapping
> structures. And they confuse members or potential members constantly.
>

Sure, the administrative work is probably doubled with the triumvirate as
opposed to a singular structure. However, Maryam gets paid by ICANN to
maintain most of the administrative work (just like is done with other SGs)
so it's not really eating _that_ much into the efficiency of volunteers.
What WOULD help with the confusion, is to embrace the logical division that
is set in the names of our constituencies. Delegate NGO issues to NPOC and
individual user issues to NCUC. Very easy to explain to all newcomers. I
also prefer having two cooperative non-commercial echo chambers instead of
one. I'm not sure if ALAC can even be counted in ICANN for defending
non-commercial interests, so we're kind of alone with this mission here. I
think our structure isn't really THAT heavy, considering it's really us
that defend human rights of billions of people. And ICANN supports it more
than we, the volunteers do. I think we need all the resources we can get to
get this job (with gradually increasing difficulty) done, without actually
paying someone to do it.


>
> 3)    Need to grow the membership base (new members)
>
>
>
> Have you every tried explaining to new members the difference between NPOC
> and NCUC and why it matters? I have been doing that for 10 years, and I can
> tell you it doesn’t help recruit new members. It is serious friction.
>

Like I said above, let's finally agree to allocate NGOs to NPOC and
individual user issues to NCUC. It's very easily explained and understood.


>
>
> 4) To develop and maintain a strong voice in ICANN for our stakeholders
>
>
>
> A more unified voice would be stronger.
>

This would be correct, if there had been even mild disagreements about
policy between the two constituencies in the last few years. I don't
remember one.

-Raoul



On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 18:26, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:

> Jacky:
>
>
>
> 1)    Current members low engagement in policy work
>
>
>
> This would not be helped by a merger, but it would not be harmed, either.
> It’s a different issue
>
>
>
> 2)    Administrative overload for Maryam and the members of the various
> ECs
>
>
>
> This most definitely WOULD be helped by a merger. One of the reasons there
> is too much administrative work is that we have duplicative, overlapping
> structures. And they confuse members or potential members constantly.
>
>
>
> 3)    Need to grow the membership base (new members)
>
>
>
> Have you every tried explaining to new members the difference between NPOC
> and NCUC and why it matters? I have been doing that for 10 years, and I can
> tell you it doesn’t help recruit new members. It is serious friction.
>
>
>
> 4) To develop and maintain a strong voice in ICANN for our stakeholders
>
>
>
> A more unified voice would be stronger.
>
>
>
> It's far too early to determine that a merger is the solution,
>
>
>
> Disagree, it has been obvious that a merger is the solution for about 5
> years. It’s way late to come to this recognition, though I am delighted
> that Sam and other NPOC members have.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20200724/e8cff1dc/attachment.htm>