Dear Sam, hi all,

I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit of your proposal. Every time this proposal is brought up though, the response is: but this will result in a smaller number of seats (and thus influence) and (travel) funding. 

Whereas we should try to prevent this decrease in influence and resources, I actually the merger should take place anyhow because it would result in an enormous increase in terms of efficiency and a decrease in bureaucracy and opacity.

Best,

Niels



On 7/10/20 6:13 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
>  *A Proposal to Merge NCSG, NCUC and NPOC for More Efficiency in ICANN’s DNS Work*
> 
>  Sam Lanfranco (NPOC/NCSG member) – July 2020
> 
> This suggestion has been a long time coming. It contains a proposal that should be considered as a topic for both “in house” and broader global stakeholder engaged dialogue. It will likely be received with some resistance and consternation among our “in house” colleagues but resigning it to the dust bin without consideration and reflection would be mistake.
> 
> The collective mission of  the three entities, NCSG, NCUC and NPOC: referred to here as “the troika”, within ICANN can be simply put as advocating for and helping giving voice to the non-profit sector, the public interest, and marginalized Internet users within the DNS community. Whether that is an adequate definition of the collective mission within the ICANN DNS remit may be an issue for further stakeholder discussion, but that issue is not germane to this proposal to merge the troika into a single entity.
> 
>  First a bit of simplistic history. NCUC was constituted as the first stakeholder constituency within the troika. With the creation of NPOC the NCSG was created as the “uber” member of the troika. The initial impetus for NPOC was the DNS concerns of large global NGOs such as the Red Cross, Red Crescent, Salvation Army, and other organizations with an affiliated global presence. As their concerns progressed through ICANN those concerned organizations basically bypassed the troika and reached higher up in dealing with ICANN. The troika role was mainly reduced to offering stakeholder comments on the process.
> 
>  At the same time, over the better part of a decade there has been a blend of cooperation and competition between the structures of the troika. There are “old timers” who still harbor some resentment toward its creation, and “newcomers” who wonder why there are sore spots.
> 
>  Leaving that history aside what is more important is that in pursuit of its mission the troika faces several problems. The first, in terms of the multistakeholder policy making process of ICANN, is that it is the weakest leg of the process stool. The troika /represents the concerns and interests/ of its constituencies. The troika cannot /represent its constituencies/ the way the contracted parties, non-contracted parties, or GAC (in its special relationship) can and do. It has no formal induction process from its constituency, nor does it have formal accountability to its constituency.
> 
>  Think of the troika as a valiant and under resourced band of public interest volunteers. Some of that band of have managed to wed career advancement to troika service and sustain engagement. Most (particularly those from marginalized communities) have not. One result is that the more marginalized within the volunteer constituency face greater obstacles, resulting in lower virtual and literal participation. The troika frequently pleas for additional ICANN resource support to address this challenge.
> 
> The troika has difficulty providing adequate volunteer labor to serve is role in terms of ICANN PDP working group and document comment demands. The troika has difficulty recruiting candidates for the necessary positions dictated by the troika structure, by the demands of the GNSO, and for other ICANN activities.
> 
>  Despite the millions of constituent organizations and individuals that fall within the troika's mission and remit, the troika has difficulty recruiting adequate new members to each of its three components. Lastly, while we hope we are voicing the concerns of the wider ngo and civil society community, it is only our voice, translating what we perceive to be their concerns into our words. Better engagement and empowerment would be to give them more direct access to the microphone so they could express their concerns and we could be more accountable.
> 
>  Given this situation what can be done? There is a way forward and it draws on organizational wisdom found in other areas of human endeavor. In business it is the issue of too many managers and too few workers. In government: too many bureaucrats and too few front-line workers. In the military: too many generals and not enough soldiers. In the troika this is further complicated by the fact that those in administrative positions also do double duty as front-line workers in ICANN’s policy development and other processes.
> 
>  The troika as now constituted demands multiple chairs, with multiple executive, policy, membership, finance, and other standing committee demands. All of this from a mainly self-selected membership community of around 300 members, where around ten to fifteen percent actively contribute volunteer labor to the administration of the troika, to the obligations it faces to the GNSO, to the all-important policy development process and to related working group and organizational matters. This at the same time it hopes that it is adequately and properly representing the ngo interests of tens of thousands of organizations, and the public interest concerns of hundreds of millions of global citizens.  
> 
>  While it is easier to fill positions that come with benefits such as attendance at ICANN meetings and strategic planning sessions, there is still a two-part bias against constituency member engagement. First, personal financial constraints and work requirements make it harder to accept elected positions. In other ICANN constituencies participation is usually part of one’s job description. Second, the organizational structure of the troika results in a considerable portion of ICANN travel support going to those in executive positions, offering less incentive for PDP/working group engagement. As well, for some it is less rewarding to participate in ICANN tasks without the benefit of face-to-face engagement at global ICANN meetings. This disincentive may grow as virtual meetings replace global face-to-face meetings.
> 
>  Of the 300 or so members within the troika about 50 sustain relative activity about half of that number that are highly active. Some of the “highly active” represent people with relative, if basic, financial positions and personal work obligations that allow, and may benefit from, participation. Others face engagement levels constrained by finances and work obligations. For those who hold membership but are relatively inactive, we have little information. Many may have expected more when they joined
> 
>  What is the way forward? The troika should hold an internal consultation to consider re-constituting the troika as a single structure. This would reduce the number of “generals” and the make benefits of participation more available to “foot soldier volunteers” engaged in the work of ICANN. There were historical reasons for creating the NCUC+NCSG+NPOC troika. The overall mission and remit remain but there is no reason for the troika to remain as structured.
> 
>  The troika should initiate a cross-the-troika discussion looking at reorganizing the three administrative structures into a single administrative structure. This would free up more volunteer labor, currently shackled with administrative duties (replicated across the troika). More labor could do more in the substantive work of stakeholder engagement in ICANN's core DNS business. A single lean administrative structure also removes the unproductive occasional competition and bickering between the constituencies within the troika.
> 
>  This re-organization alone would not fully meet ICANN's and the constituencies efforts to increase the participation from the global constituency, and from marginalized DNS communities and individuals. This is an efficiency proposal. Greater participation is a separate challenge.
> 
>  In conclusion, the proposal here is for the troika to open an internal discussion to consider re-structuring NCSG, NCUC and NPOC into a single administrative structure. How to do this, and what it would be called would be part of that discussion. A single structure would produce more scope for volunteer non-profit and civil society engagement in the core work of ICANN while at the same time presenting a more clearly defined single entity for expanding engagement by the wider global non-profit and civil society constituency.
> 
>  Sam Lanfranco, NPOC
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 

-- 
Niels ten Oever
Researcher and PhD Candidate - DATACTIVE Research Group - University of Amsterdam
Postdoctoral Scholar (abd) - Communications Department - Texas A&M University
Research Fellow - Centre for Internet and Human Rights - European University Viadrina
Associated Scholar - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - Fundação Getúlio Vargas

W: https://nielstenoever.net
E: [log in to unmask]
T: @nielstenoever
P/S/WA: +31629051853
PGP: 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3