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

[dorothy g]

So the idea is to just have NCSG,  no more NPOC and NCUC.  So if the group
persists in going in the consolidation direction the participation in the
group to engage with ICANN should be 2 from NPOC and 2 from NCUC.  I do not
get the point of any participation from the umbrella group as everyone
there is from either NPOC or NCUC.  If we have definitional problems all we
need to do is to provide a clear standard definition. Your argument  seems
to tend to the dissolution of NPOC as you explain the logic for setting it
up no longer exists. NPOC members may have a different view. I just wish we
could focus on getting people to participate more effectively. Merging will
not in my view solve that fundamental problem.

best

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 2:02 AM Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:

> 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
>
>

-- 

stay well, kind regards
Dorothy Gordon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20200728/8d872f77/attachment.htm>