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

[Joan Kerr]

Thank you Dorothy.  I totally agree with you.

I wished that the proposed idea was more consultative, such as how can we
work more together on common issues, education and engagement, since each
constituency has its own responsibilities to conceive, develop and
implement those, while being caught up in the administrative duties.

 NPOC represents the voice of not for profits in the ICANN ecosystem, and
more than ever, has a responsibility to inform them about the many issues
that affect their operations and garner their expertise for solutions.

For the record, I am NOT supportive of a merger and neither is the NPOC EC.
The EC has spent a tremendous amount of time defining its role, purpose,
developing strategies and building trust and transparency to ensure
accountability for its members, so that when we engage others to
participate, they are assured of NPOC's absolute openness and dedication to
its responsibilities as* their *voice in ICANN.  Organizations have
responded by joining and offering to participate because they respect our
work. The comments NPOC hears is the positivity and inclusive nature NPOC
has embraced, amidst historic  elimination issues we chose to leave behind
and be more forward thinking as a Constituency and focus on the
foundational building of NPOC and its own constituency framework
to encourage engagement, education and inclusion.

NPOC's newly elected EC are focussed on policy development,member
participation and education to address operational issues for the 1000s of
not for profits.

As I have said before, I will join a Working Group to explore ways we can
work effectively and cooperatively, but not to discuss a merger in any way.
Regards,


On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 9:47 AM dorothy g <dgdorothydg at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>


-- 

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/20200728/2667825f/attachment.htm>