[NCUC-DISCUSS] Pilot Program

[Kathy Kleiman]

I've been out of town, but if this offer is being made to all 
constituencies, and we turn it down, won't we potentially be at an even 
greater disadvantage than we already are? We are already volunteer 
people in NCUC working across the table from people largely paid to be 
here from other constituencies. If they now get paid staff to write 
their comments (presumably which they have designed and drafted), 
doesn't our disadvantage become that much worse? Aren't we that much 
further behind?

I agree that this person does not seem a good fit for our positions, our 
work and our views. Of course, we would want someone who is! But that's 
different than rejecting the program.  With so many comments to which we 
are Not responding and so much work we are Not doing, it would be good 
to have someone who could turn our notes into a draft -- to spin straw 
into gold :-).

Best, Kathy

On 4/25/2016 3:23 PM, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I think after studying the write up, it is worth supporting.
>
> My 50cents, is to give in my support for the pilot program.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Sonigitu Ekpe
>
> Mobile +234 805 0232 469    Office + 234 802 751 0179
>  "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving"
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 6:13 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net 
> <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
>
>     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
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>     Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>     http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20160425/bdb1a5aa/attachment-0002.html>