[NCUC-DISCUSS] Pilot Program

[Edward Morris]

 Hello everybody,
  
 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".
  
 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.
  
 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 policy. Friends, if we can't research and draft and create policy 
positions ourselves then we don't deserve to exist. 
  
 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.
  
 In our proposed response we seem to be asking ICANN for some of this type 
of support:
  
 - assistance with front end issue research
 - research on the background of the specific issue being addressed
 - join community calls/chats where "position setting" is focus
  
 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:
  
  
 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.   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.
  
 He also plays a leading role in business community activity with UN 
Internet Governance Forum (IGF).
  
  
  
 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.
  
 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.
  
 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.
  
 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.
  
 Best,
  
 Ed
  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20160425/b2995276/attachment.html>