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

[Nadira Alaraj]

Thanks Milton,
Inline

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 8:20 PM Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:

> Nadira:
>
>
>
> A formally designated “working party” with “representatives” from
> different silos is not the way to go, in my opinion, particularly when some
> representatives have already said they do not even support the whole
> endeavor.
>
NA: I see your point here and I agree particularly when the leaders are not
receptive to the whole idea.

> The onus is on the people who want change to propose specific changes in
> an amended charter. Let them propose such changes, then expose them to
> everyone.
>
NA: Sam is brining more ideas as the discussion progress. James anticipated
a long time to analyze the Charter and the procedures to formulate a
concrete proposal.

> Once that happens we can have a more substantive debate about what’s good
> or bad about those proposed changes.
>
NA: I still see the need for those who are pro the merge to work together
in presenting their re-engineering along with the charter amendments. Here
I see more substantive debate happening.

> At that point, those who currently oppose any changes can see whether any
> modifications of the proposal would make it acceptable to them. Or they can
> just vote against it.
>
NA: I agree

>
>
> That’s the simplest, fastest and fairest way to deal with this.
>
NA: I think if there is no structured work to be put forward at once, the
discussant will lose the stamina in following the different thread in
different mailing lists and the issue will put to sleep.

Dr. Milton L Mueller
>
> Georgia Institute of Technology
>
> School of Public Policy
>
> Internet Governance Project <https://internetgovernance.org/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Nadira Alaraj <nadira.araj at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 28, 2020 1:11 PM
> *To:* Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
> *Cc:* NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
> *Subject:* Re: Follow Up and Further Reflections on Consolidating NCSG,
> NCUC and NPOC
>
>
>
> 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/20200728/21c19d45/attachment.htm>