[NCUC-DISCUSS] Pilot Program

[Ayden Férdeline]

Thank you to everyone who has shared their perspective on this issue.
In Marrakech, we communicated to the Board that the NCUC needs to build its
capacity to absorb an increased, growing, and specialised workload. I am so
pleased that our calls have been heard and we are being offered new resources to
increase our participation in ICANN activities.
If ICANN would like to provide the NCUC with on-going financial support so that
we can periodically bring consultants of our own choosing on board to assist
with our policy work, I have no objections.
What I am less comfortable with is the idea of delegating our agenda setting
powers to Staff. If we allow Staff to 'position set' or to identify key areas of
concern, we may loose sight of what is really at play. There way well be value
in having Staff assistance in summarising documents or clarifying the history of
an issue, though I am tempted to push back and to ask why this is not already
happening in working groups? If the answer is, it is, but these summaries or
histories contain biases - why do we expect a different outcome here?
We do need additional support and I am so very grateful that ICANN is trying to
help us. But we need the right aid. Rather than rejecting this assistance
outright, I would prefer that we agree to take part in the pilot programme but
set our own parametres around what support we will accept and what support we
find unsuitable.
I would certainly feel more comfortable hiring an existing NCUC or NCSG member -
someone whose values align with our own, who is trusted, and who is already on
board with our ethos - to do this work. As we grow we need to accept that there
is a place for compensated policy advisors to aid us in representing the needs
of our 500+ members. But THAT is key — they have to represent us.
Ayden
P.S. 100 hours every four months sounds inadequate to me. I would like us to
have 2 or 3 FTEs.
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 9:33 AM, Stephanie Perrin stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca wrote:
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 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 list
Ncuc-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.orghttp://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss



Ayden Férdeline Statement of Interest
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20160426/4108a17b/attachment-0002.html>