<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><font size="+2"><font face="Lucida Grande">+1 and thanks for jumping
in so soon after joining us Barbara! Great to have you with
us. Re your second point on contracting, it is a serious
issue but at least if we controlled the contracting of our
research help we could consult those on our list (there are many
inactive members who nevertheless could contribute their
perspectives on research topics). ICANN does, in my view,
lead one to tunnel vision after a while...<br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+2"><font face="Lucida Grande">Stephanie Perrin</font></font><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2016-04-25 21:48, Barbara Mittleman
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAHw4TV11A0-B6TF91Pkk-ATziBha7F4x9zzT73tn5f--V9GTLw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div dir="ltr">Dear all,
<div> as a new member to the group I offer a caveat that I may
not be fully informed here. That said, here are some
thoughts. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If ICANN is the administrative home or host to the NCUC,
getting some organizational or infrastructure support from
ICANN should not necessarily compromise the NCUC's
independence in policy or decision-making, and need not be the
on ramp to a slippery slope. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Having ICANN contract for research on behalf of the NCUC,
however, is a different matter. This should be undertaken, if
at all, with great caution. Anyone who does research knows
that what one chooses to look at, what one includes in the
analysis, and what weight is given to each contributing datum
or information is all critical to fashioning an integrated
view. A contract organization doing research on behalf of the
NCUC but with oversight by others exposes the NCUC to
receiving intentionally or accidentally skewed and prejudiced
material. Likewise having outside facilitators /integrators
of discussions presents a similar risk.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So, I would not support agreeing to such 'help'. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>AS for supporting the policy development work done by ICANN
volunteer members, this is a serious issue worthy of
discussion. There is a self-selection of those doing the work
from the subset of stakeholders who have the time, bandwidth
and economic security to devote time to ICANN and the NCUC's
efforts. As such, the active volunteers may represent a
subset of the community and some may be systematically
excluded from participation because they don't have protected
time for these activities. Paying contractors may well
exacerbate the skewing and may further exclude important
points of view.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Barbara</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 10:13 PM,
Edward Morris <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net" target="_blank">egmorris1@toast.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span
style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,Sans-Serif;font-size:12px">
<div> </div>
<div>Hello everybody,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The NCUC EC will be discussing today whether to
participate in an ICANN pilot program designed to offer
assistance with policy research and document drafting to
selected constituencies and stakeholder groups. I echo
the views expressed by Milton on the NCUC EC mailing
list when he writes "I want to express my strongest
opposition to this entire program".</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It is tempting. We are launching three major pdp's,
some of us are dramatically overworked, we sure need
help. But not from ICANN, not in this way, not now.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If ICANN wants to support the NCUC in policy
development (of course, the NCUC traditionally does not
do policy to any great extent, a mistake in my
view) there are ways to assist us with resources. The
key is control of these resources. This program IMHO
does not empower the NCUC; if successful it could make
us somewhat dependent upon ICANN for assistance with <strong>policy</strong>.
Friends, if we can't research and draft and create
policy positions ourselves then we don't deserve to
exist. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Three years ago I was opposed to accepting ICANN's
offer of administrative help. It was not that I thought
hiring someone (who turned out to be MaryAm) to assist
with the tasks volunteers like Robin were then
spending far too much time doing would doom us to
"company union" status. My opposition was based upon the
fear that once we went down this slippery slope there
was no turning back. My fear is being realised with this
program.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In our proposed response we seem to be asking ICANN
for some of this type of support:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>- assistance with front end issue research</div>
<div>- research on the background of the specific issue
being addressed</div>
<div>- join community calls/chats where "position setting"
is focus</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This program is bering developed by an ICANN
contractor WBC Global. Dan O'Neill is the Principal of
the firm and is the one working on this program with
ICANN. Dan's biography states:</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div><span
style="color:rgb(102,102,102);font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">As
the principal of the firm, he offers public policy,
political and strategic business advice to Fortune 500
and other companies, with a focus on international
trade, market access and intellectual property
rights. He represent companies before Congress, the
White House and federal agencies on a diverse set of
public policy matters including investment,
international trade disputes, international tax,
custom issues as well as economic sanctions issues.</span><br
style="color:rgb(102,102,102);font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span
style="color:rgb(102,102,102);font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px"> </span><br
style="color:rgb(102,102,102);font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span
style="color:rgb(102,102,102);font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Recent
activities on behalf of clients include: advising on
the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement on
negotiations impacting intellectual property rights,
investment and market access; lobby in support of
permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) for Russia;
strategizing and lobbying for companies having market
access and IPR issues in China; advising on WTO
negotiations on expansion of the Information
Technology Agreement and renewed effort to secure an
agreement on Services; and provide advice on the use
of US trade preference programs for investment issues
in developing countries.</span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span
style="color:rgb(102,102,102);font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">He
also plays a leading role in business community
activity with UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF).</span></div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>This is not someone I want anywhere near our
Constituency. Mr. O'Neill spends his professional life
advocating for positions and organisations that are
traditionally opposed to that which the NCUC supports.
He's not somebody with our interests at heart.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If ICANN wants to support the NCUC in this area I
have no problem with the NCUC accepting ICANN's
financial support: provided we have complete
independence in selecting the hire and defining the job.
There are many in the nonprofit sector, many public
interest organizations, we could contract with for
policy help if we had the resources and freedom to do
so. We can do better than joining a "pilot program"
being organised by someone who has a "leading role in
business community activity" within the IGF. In fact,
instead of joining this program we should be questioning
why WBC was hired.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>One other problem: If ICANN is going to pay people to
do some of our policy work then why should anyone do
other parts of our policy work for free? When I run
political campaigns I keep paid canvassers completely
separate from volunteer canvassers. I've found you lose
the volunteers if you don't. Same thing here. If you
look at the details of the proposal there is even a
chance the help provided may be an active member of
another part of the ICANN community. Amazing.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I join Milton in hoping the EC rejects this. We do
need help in this area but not under these terms. Our
independence is very much at stake. Please, EC, keep
ICANN and WBC Global away from direct involvement in
the noncommercial policy develkopmnent process. Do not
go further down this slope leading to dependence upon
ICANN for all that we do.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ed</div>
<div> </div>
</span>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ncuc-discuss mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss">http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>