[Npoc-discuss] NPOC Charter Revision Work

Thu Oct 6 18:05:01 UTC 2016

Comments on the NPOC Charter Review, Sam Lanfranco, October 6, 2016

Klaus,

Thank you, Maryam, and the NPOC Executive for initiating the Charter 
Review.

Thank you and the NPOC Executive for initiating the Charter Review. The 
explosive growth of the Internet, coupled with those left behind in 
terms of access, use and benefits, and the transition in ICANN’s 
operational role, make this an ideal time to reflect, discuss, and craft 
a revised Charter for NPOC’s remit, focus and work plan.

It is extremely important that the not-for-profit/non-governmental 
organization sector (NFP/NGO), and those constituencies it represents, 
have a bigger voice in the various levels of Internet governance and 
policy. Those policies aid or obstruct their pursuit of their own 
mission and vision.

In light of the Charter revision I would like to offer some initial 
observations from two perspectives, observations intended to feed 
discussion. One is from the perspective of an NFP/NGO. The second is 
from three years within NPOC, its NCSG umbrella group, and inside the 
ICANN organizational ecosystem.

The NGO I represent has a global health mission. I represent it because 
of my interests and willingness to devote the time to NPOC. The NGO has 
a general interest in the health and wellness of the Internet ecosystem, 
including DNS policy and implementation, but –as with most NFP/NGOs- it 
is not in a position to devote time or resources to that interest. This 
is not
unlike health NFP/NGOs and the issue of radioactive waste disposal. 
Medical radioactive waste is a serious issue, representing a significant 
portion on low level radioactive waste, but most health NFP/NGOs are 
focused on their core health mission. They are not in a position to 
devote time and resources to join others dealing with the problems of 
medical radioactive waste.

What does this mean for NPOC and ICANN in general? It means that 
greater, broader and deeper NFP/NGO engagement has to carry a short term 
gain (a “win”) for greater engagement in the broader Internet ecosystem. 
That has to be more than just a window or door to greater awareness of, 
and engagement in, ICANN’s mission of domain name system (DNS) stability and
security.

How does NPOC do that? The answer is not to revise the Charter to wider 
NPOC’s core remit, which is linked to and constrained by ICANN’s remit. 
It is in the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) #17. In discussion 
with its constituency NPOC should help build stronger partnerships 
between the majority of underrepresented NFP/NGOs and processes and 
structures that address the policies and practices shaping the Internet 
ecosystem at all levels relevant to the NFP/NGO sector and its 
constituent parts. An NPOC deliverable, as part of this, would be 
greater NFP/NGO awareness and engagement in ICANN policy and 
implementation.

I would now like to share learning from three years of engagement with 
ICANN and NPOC, as it directly relates to either the NPOC Charter or its 
subsequent work plan.

The first learning is with regard to the depth and breath of active NPOC 
membership. Most current membership, as with the rest of NCSG, is driven 
by individuals who are essentially working pro bono representing their 
organizations, and working pro bono for ICANN. Beyond that narrow 
breadth of membership, there are two significant vacuums in the 
membership space.

One vacuum is at the top of the NFP/NGO pyramid, and on the part of the 
large global organizations. They were the impetus for NPOC in the first 
place but they do not play a role in NPOC. That is in part because they 
have other avenues in which to pursue their ICANN engagement (e.g. via 
the GNSO directly). There may be a Charter issue, or it may be an NPOC 
work plan issue, but it warrants at least some discussion.

The other vacuum is at the bottom of the NFP/NGO pyramid (BoP). The BoP 
represents the vast majority of constituency groups. It is where the 
vast number of NFP/NGO Internet challenges resides, and where there is 
only a tiny sliver of engagement with NPOC, NCSG and ICANN. Again, this 
calls for greater clarity with regard to NPOC’s partnership efforts and 
its work
plan to help others address those needs and concerns at all levels of 
the Intenet ecosystem.

Lastly, I have a concern related to the proposed requirement, from 
Klau’s kick off message, that a membership-based NFP/NGO must represent 
primarily non-commercial organizations. I would like that requirement to 
be the subject of discussion. I believe this is an important deviation 
from the initial NPOC Charter which was worded to allow membership by 
professional associations with educational, social or other 
non-commercial objectives. Under the proposed requirement if NPOC were 
apart from ICANN, ICANN would not be eligible to join NPOC even though 
its remit would be identical. What the implications are for the 
differences between -membership must represent primarily non-commercial 
organizations-, and -the organization must have a
non-commercial mission- needs to be discussed and reflected on.

This proposed requirement of membership brings two problems. One is the 
potential exclusion of professional associations where they engage in 
support of the public interest, no matter what the composition of their 
membership might be. That would include organizations such as global
chapters of Rotary Clubs, Lions Clubs, and similar organizations with a 
strong public interest and social policy focus. The other (growing) 
problem would be with respect to social business and “B Corp” social 
enterprise organizations. There is strong pressure for NFO/NGOs to become
self-financing with a social business focus (as per ICANN?). That should 
not preclude them from NPOC membership. This issue needs to be discussed.

I would hope that the issues raised here would be discussed both inside 
the Charter revision committee and with the NPOC, and if possible wider, 
NFP/NGO constituency community.

Sam Lanfranco, NPOC

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
https://link.mail2web.com/mail2web

explosive growth of the Internet, coupled with those left behind in terms
of access, use and benefits, and the transition in ICANN’s operational
role, make this an ideal time to reflect, discuss, and craft a revised
Charter for NPOC’s remit, focus and work plan.

It is extremely important that the not-for-profit/non-governmental
organization sector (NFP/NGO), and those constituencies it represents, have
a bigger voice in the various levels of Internet governance and policy.
Those policies aid or obstruct their pursuit of their own mission and
vision.

In light of the Charter revision I would like to offer some initial
observations from two perspectives, observations intended to feed
discussion. One is from the perspective of an NFP/NGO. The second is from
three years within NPOC, its NCSG umbrella group, and inside the ICANN
organizational ecosystem.

The NGO I represent has a global health mission. I represent it because of
my interests and willingness to devote the time to NPOC. The NGO has a
general interest in the health and wellness of the Internet ecosystem,
including DNS policy and implementation, but –as with most NFP/NGOs- it is
not in a position to devote time or resources to that interest. This is not
unlike health NFP/NGOs and the issue of radioactive waste disposal. Medical
radioactive waste is a serious issue, representing a significant portion on
low level radioactive waste, but most health NFP/NGOs are focused on their
core health mission. They are not in a position to devote time and
resources to join others dealing with the problems of medical radioactive
waste.

What does this mean for NPOC and ICANN in general? It means that greater,
broader and deeper NFP/NGO engagement has to carry a short term gain (a
“win”) for greater engagement in the broader Internet ecosystem. That has
to be more than just a window or door to greater awareness of, and
engagement in, ICANN’s mission of domain name system (DNS) stability and
security.

How does NPOC do that? The answer is not to revise the Charter to wider
NPOC’s core remit, which is linked to and constrained by ICANN’s remit. It
is in the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) #17. In discussion with
its constituency NPOC should help build stronger partnerships between the
majority of underrepresented NFP/NGOs and processes and structures that
address the policies and practices shaping the Internet ecosystem at all
levels relevant to the NFP/NGO sector and its constituent parts. An NPOC
deliverable, as part of this, would be greater NFP/NGO awareness and
engagement in ICANN policy and implementation.

I would now like to share learning from three years of engagement with
ICANN and NPOC, as it directly relates to either the NPOC Charter or its
subsequent work plan.

The first learning is with regard to the depth and breath of active NPOC
membership. Most current membership, as with the rest of NCSG, is driven by
individuals who are essentially working pro bono representing their
organizations, and working pro bono for ICANN. Beyond that narrow breadth
of membership, there are two significant vacuums in the membership space.

One vacuum is at the top of the NFP/NGO pyramid, and on the part of the
large global organizations. They were the impetus for NPOC in the first
place but they do not play a role in NPOC. That is in part because they
have other avenues in which to pursue their ICANN engagement (e.g. via the
GNSO directly). There may be a Charter issue, or it may be an NPOC work
plan issue, but it warrants at least some discussion.

The other vacuum is at the bottom of the NFP/NGO pyramid (BoP). The BoP
represents the vast majority of constituency groups. It is where the vast
number of NFP/NGO Internet challenges resides, and where there is only a
tiny sliver of engagement with NPOC, NCSG and ICANN. Again, this calls for
greater clarity with regard to NPOC’s  partnership efforts and its work
plan to help others address those needs and concerns at all levels of the
Intenet ecosystem.

Lastly, I have a concern related to the proposed requirement, from Klau’s
kick off message, that a membership-based NFP/NGO must represent primarily
non-commercial organizations. I would like that requirement to be the
subject of discussion. I believe this is an important deviation from the
initial NPOC Charter which was worded to allow membership by professional
associations with educational, social or other non-commercial objectives.
Under the proposed requirement if NPOC were apart from ICANN, ICANN would
not be eligible to join NPOC even though its remit would be identical. What
the implications are for the differences between -membership must represent
primarily non-commercial organizations-, and -the organization must have a
non-commercial mission- needs to be discussed and reflected on.

This proposed requirement of membership brings two problems. One is the
potential exclusion of professional associations where they engage in
support of the public interest, no matter what the composition of their
membership might be. That would include organizations such as global
chapters of Rotary Clubs, Lions Clubs, and similar organizations with a
strong public interest and social policy focus. The other (growing) problem
would be with respect to social business and “B Corp” social enterprise
organizations. There is strong pressure for NFO/NGOs to become
self-financing with a social business focus (as per ICANN?). That should
not preclude them from NPOC membership. This issue needs to be discussed.

I would hope that the issues raised here would be discussed both inside the
Charter revision committee and with the NPOC, and if possible wider,
NFP/NGO constituency community.

Sam Lanfranco, NPOC

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/npoc-discuss/attachments/20161006/28d9d9e1/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Comments on the NPOC Charter Review.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 44032 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/npoc-discuss/attachments/20161006/28d9d9e1/CommentsontheNPOCCharterReview.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Comments on the NPOC Charter Review.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 38574 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/npoc-discuss/attachments/20161006/28d9d9e1/CommentsontheNPOCCharterReview.pdf>