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

[Nadira Alaraj]

Dear All,
I’m here again suggesting to form a working party with equal
representatives from the three bodies to formally analyzing the proposal of
merger from all its aspects.

The Chairs of NCSG/NCUC/NPOC with consultation of their community to decide
if they wanted to go ahead discussing the merger or not.

I don’t see the discussions over the mailing lists lead anywhere.

Best wishes
Nadira




On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 7:54 PM Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:

> That’s right Arsene. Some of our most active members (e.g., Amr) refuse to
> join either constituency.
>
>
>
> *From:* NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> *On Behalf Of *Arsène
> Tungali
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 28, 2020 12:01 PM
> *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> *Subject:* Re: Follow Up and Further Reflections on Consolidating NCSG,
> NCUC and NPOC
>
>
>
> 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/20200728/909190b3/attachment.htm>