[NCUC-DISCUSS] Pilot Program

Tue Apr 26 07:20:34 CEST 2016

Not using ICANN funding, other constituencies do this using their own funding however.

On 26/04/2016, 06:18, "Ncuc-discuss on behalf of Dan Krimm" <ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org on behalf of dan at musicunbound.com> wrote:

>Hmm, now I'm thinking about how to possibly game the system.
>
>Could we designate a current NCUC member (or several to choose from) who
>otherwise fits the job description to officially recuse from explicit NCUC
>membership?  But then, of course, they'd have to consult with NCUC on any
>related work, so perhaps we could still keep them on the email list to stay
>abreast of discussions, etc.
>
>Could we end up getting someone sympathetic with our mission actually paid
>to do the work?
>
>Dan
>
>
>
>At 12:24 AM -0400 4/26/16, Edward Morris 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
>>><<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>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
>>><mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>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
>>><mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss