[NCUC-DISCUSS] Pilot Program

Tue Apr 26 07:39:58 CEST 2016

Hi all,

+1 Sana!

As a relative newcomer, Sana's points resonate strongly with me. ICANN as a
whole is quite intimidating and often politicized. I recognize this is the
nature of the work in general, but between technical and process
competencies needed to engage fully as well as the political
under/overtones, it is easy to understand why silence can be the better
option for those who are new to the ecosystem.

With that said, I am merely sharing perspective and not solutions.

Best,
-Michael
__________________

Michael J. Oghia
Istanbul, Turkey
Journalist & editor
2015 ISOC IGF Ambassador
Skype: mikeoghia
Twitter <https://www.twitter.com/MikeOghia> *|* LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikeoghia>

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Sana Ali <sana.ali2030 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> 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>
> 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
>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing listNcuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.orghttp://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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20160426/ed71cd17/attachment-0002.html>