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

[Sam Lanfranco]

	I would like to express my appreciation for the thoughtful comments, both
pro and con, made with regard to my proposal that we review the existing
structures within NCSG, and explore if there are efficiency and
effectiveness gains from a possible redesign under one administrative
structure.  

	I would like to add some observations. First, NCSG/NCUC/NPOC is unique
among the ICANN constituencies. Individual engagement in the other
constituencies is usually part of a job and one is accountable to one’s
employer. When we represent an organization, as I do, we rarely receive
material support (income, travel, accommodations. We may be only loosely
accountable for the positions we take in policy development and other ICANN
business, expected to work on behalf of the public interest. 

	We occupy a special position in ICANN’s multistakeholder model.
Virtually all the other stakeholder groups (including GAC) have a strong
material self-interest in ICANN’s policies and practices, tempered with a
social enterprise commitment to the public good. For the troika, the
priorities tend to be reversed. We work on behalf of the public good, while
remaining aware of the self-interests of our organizations, or our
individual self-interest.  

	Not only are we different, our presence is essential to ICANN’s
commitment to a multistakeholder model. On the three/four legged ICANN
multistakeholder stool there is the contracted-parties leg, the
non-contracted-parties leg, the troika as a fragile third leg, and GAC, in
its special position, as a possible fourth leg. As ICANN seeks to
strengthen its multistakeholder model (MSM) we should have a dialogue with
them around ways we and they can strengthen the troika’s leg, strengthen
our role in ICANNs affairs, and improve the effectiveness of ICANN’s
material support for us. We should go beyond general MSM policy development
and draft document comments.  

	In terms of our volunteer resources and ICANN’s material support it is
worth again remembering why NPOC was spun off from NCUC, with NCSG being
formed as the umbrella group. About a decade ago large global NGOs were
afraid of unauthorized and possibly fraudulent uses of their names in the
DNS space, and NPOC was created to give them a venue for their concerns
within ICANN. However, from the very start those large global NGOs decided
to lobby ICANN more directly and leave NPOC, NCSG, and NCUC only as
commentators in the process.  

	Trying to explain the differences between NCGS, NCUC and NPOC to
prospective members, and to those outside ICANN who are engaged in DNS
issues, is not easy. It does not help in recruiting members nor does it
expand volunteer resources. Staffing three effectively similar
administrative structures with volunteers in not easy. Equally difficult is
to answer the question “What is lost if the troika consolidates into one
administrative structure?” 

	The troika has a core of dedicated and hard-working volunteers who reflect
the rule that no matter the size of the organization, about 20% of the
members do 80% of the work. Here those who do most of the work are
overworked. With more members on board and engaged in policy development we
could do more, more equitably share the work, and make a bigger
contribution to ICANN’s mission and vision, while serving the public
interest.
	There are several directions in which this discussion can be taken. I
suggest that one would be to have a three person group (NCSG, NCUC, NPOC)
engage in a conversation with ICANN that explores the levels of ICANN
support, the modes of ICANN support, and areas where those resources could
be used more effectively in the troika’s role in ICANN’s work. It would
of course make no decisions but would inform us of the concerns and ideas
exchanged. At the same time we should not just list, but also carefully
weigh the benefits and costs an administrative consolidation.  

	Sam Lanfranco, NPOC 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20200727/e8c254b0/attachment.htm>