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

[Arsène Tungali]

We also have here folks who are only members of the NCSG, Dorothy!

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020, 3:44 PM 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20200728/ab0b9679/attachment.htm>