[NCUC-DISCUSS] Pilot Program

Tue Apr 26 07:12:10 CEST 2016

Dear Ed,

I would like to respond to some of your comments with a few questions, without commenting on the greater issue of whether paid positions for doing NCUC work ought to be created. 

You consider your work at the NCUC public service, and you are well respected for it. However, one of the chronic problems the NCUC has had, is its reliance on the same people, the “natives” as they are referred to, to do the bulk of the work (or paid civil society reps as you said). This is an outcome of a steep learning curve and heavy initial investment to understand the processes and ecosystem before being able to contribute effectively. Naturally, this scares many people away. 

Something to consider, perhaps, is what makes the NCUC a valuable commitment and such a worthwhile investment for a complete newcomer whose aim is to perform “public service”? 

It is rare that you will find an individual with no previous stake in ICANN, who is not looking to gain anything (i.e., experience in the form of what is essentially an unpaid internship, a stepping stone for a career change, a networking opportunity, a holiday, etc), and is willing to do the legwork to catch up on what is going on. Similarly, it will be rare to find someone who already has the expertise that makes the initial investment and learning curve less intimidating and also has no previous stake in ICANN. This is because in the grand scheme of things, neither of these people will think that the most effective way for them to perform a public service or make impact is by way of putting work into the NCUC. Not only in light of the large scale availability of public service opportunity outside of ICANN, but also in light of NCUC’s unique and unfortunately quite weak positioning within the ICANN ecosystem. If there is serious resistance to financially incentivizing people who might want to participate in NCUC work, then I think we definitely have to in some way address these two structural barriers that our community faces. To ignore them, while rejecting any kind of financial incentivizing, I’m afraid, would only serve to hold us back against some very strong (and well-financed) opponents. I question the value of championing purity over purpose, while greatly admiring yours (purity, that is).

Having said that, hats off and much respect to the four very tired, overworked volunteers.

Warm wishes,
Sana Ali
sana.ali2030 at gmail.com <mailto:sana.ali2030 at gmail.com>
https://ca.linkedin.com/in/sanaali2030 <https://ca.linkedin.com/in/sanaali2030>

> On Apr 26, 2016, at 12:24 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
> 
>  
> Kathy,
>  
> Last night four very tired, overworked volunteers were on a call to develop a public comment on ICANN’s FY17 Operating Plan and Budget. Five hundred NCSG members were not on this call. In my view the solution to our staffing problem is not to turn policy research and development over to ICANN but rather to try to make this group work as it should by involving more of our members in policy work.
>  
> Let’s take a look at this program. ICANN proposes helping the NCUC  “with support for the research, development, collaboration, drafting and editing of documents for submission within the policy development processes of ICANN”. By support they mean having a staffer research, write and direct policy calls.  
>  
> Who is this staffer? Leading experts in the fields we deal with? No. ICANN proposes giving us support by staffers that fit this description:  “a Master or Ph.D student, or recent graduates in one of the following areas would be most preferred: computer security, computer science, information science, engineering and public policy”.
>  
> Let me get this straight: members of the NCUC who are students, professors or academics in these fields are still expected to donate their time for free doing policy at ICANN while we have young people in or just out of school getting paid to do roughly the same work?
>  
> It gets better. As David Olive writes: “We would also welcome your input on any specific individuals you might recommend to serve in a test support role for the community. ICANN procurement principles would prevent someone from the same community helping out within that community, but if you are aware of any skilled writers and researchers who are interested in a temporary assignment, please let me know.”.
>  
> So anyone in the NCUC, any of our many Masters or PhD students currently donating your time: Let David know you want to get paid for your work in ICANN. Sure, you’ll have to work for another constituency or stakeholder group but at least you’ll get paid. Who cares about your values or personal beliefs?
>  
> I consider my work here to be public service. It does not and will never appear on my resume. Others are here as representatives of their civil society organization. They do get paid for their work here, albeit indirectly. Still, there very much is a volunteer ethos in the NCUC. Going down the road proposed by ICANN corporate will undoubtedly kill that spirit. I’ve seen it happen in political campaigns where paid and volunteer staff often run into problems working with each other in harmony and void of jealousy. The volunteers resent those being paid.
>  
> As Milton has written, we haven’t worked so hard to restructure this corporation into one where the ultimate power is community based to now allow staff to better manage the community.
>  
> I guess I can put this in more personal terms:  If we are going to start paying people to do what I now do for free, don’t expect me to do it for free anymore. Yes, ICANN’s support in this area could help us but ONLY by agreeing to contract with our own people to provide these services. As it stands now the only people not eligible to work in these new roles for the NCUC are NCUC members. Yet our members are free to work for other constituencies and stakeholder groups. Does this somehow make sense to anyone?
>  
> Yes, last night four tired, overworked NCUC volunteers worked on a NCSG public comment on the FY17 Budget. I’ve seen a draft of ALAC’s public comments, written with staff assistance. I’ve seen the RSSAC comments. Our public comment will be superior to those, as our comments often are. That’s because of the talent and commitment of the volunteer members of the NCUC.
>  
> We do not need ICANN corporate to pay non NCUC member students they select to do our policy development for us. We certainly could use help and resources in this area but not this type of help. But if we decide to go in this direction...
>  
> I wonder if I really could get hired and help the IPC write policy documents porting the new gTLD RPM's over to legacy gTLD's. Personally, I think that's a terrible idea and as a NCUC volunteer I've been prepared to fight it but I do need to pay bills so...so much for my public service ethos.
>  
> This program is a poorly designed bad idea.
>  
> Kind Regards,
>  
> Ed
>  
>  
>  
> From: "Kathy Kleiman" <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 3:38 AM
> To: ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Pilot Program
>  
> 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 <http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss>
>>  
>>    
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 <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/20160426/67e708b6/attachment-0002.html>