[NCUC-DISCUSS] Pilot Program
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Tue Apr 26 10:33:21 CEST 2016
For someone new to NCUC, Sana, I think your comments are very astute.
It is a central conundrum.
Kind regards, Stephanie Perrin
On 2016-04-26 7:12, Sana Ali 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 <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>
>> *Sent*: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 3:38 AM
>> *To*: ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto: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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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 <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/20160426/b3dc1b9d/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list