[NCUC-DISCUSS] Pilot Program
Matthew Shears
mshears at cdt.org
Tue Apr 26 12:09:09 CEST 2016
I agree with those who think it would be a mistake to reject this out of
hand.
We are under resourced and so _we need to make of this what we want and
need_.
I can for example see merit in these three elements of the proposal:
/Assistance with “front-end” research on the specific ICANN issues//
//Participate in community calls/online chats on the specific issue
where"position-setting" is focus--keep notes of the call/chat and
prepare reportfor circulation to community members;//
//Preparation of “issue overview” documents identifying and assessing
keyelementsand impact on the community;/
But I am sure as Rafik and Bill suggest that we can come back with a
proposal that we would find acceptable and more importantly would be of
use to us.
Matthew
On 4/26/2016 10:42 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> it is always to have healthy discussion and to see what path we can
> follow.
>
> but first , better to start with context and facts. This proposal
> comes after earlier discussion with staff, with regard to increasing
> workload for policy development and also about engaging our members
> and having them in board. several parts of GNSO community expressed a
> lot of concerns and were looking for more support to alleviate the
> burden. Another point, hearing many newcomers there were a lot of
> requests about having briefings, summaries, compilation of previous
> NCUC positions etc so they can get on board more easier. Those kind of
> request can be hardly met by our already overloaded volunteers and we
> have to find a sustainable solution.
>
> The discussion took more substance in last summer by having an ICANN
> staff to manage the process and with requests about feedback and,
> what kind of policy support can be provided.
> Knowing the reservation about 3rd parties getting involved in drafting
> our comments, I made clear that is definitely a no-go. other
> constituencies made the same point. Another requirement was to be able
> to select the hired resource that we can trust and that cannot be a
> shared person between different groups. my understanding is that we
> will be involved directly in hiring process.
>
> For clarification, WBC won't be involved in policy support per se, its
> role as consulting firm is limited to help to design this pilot
> project with staff and deliver a proposal to the community. I
> highlight the term pilot, which means the ability to experiment,
> assess and decide to go forward or not. the pilot project may or may
> not be extended i.e. getting budget for next years. From our side, we
> can decide to renew the experience if we are not happy, there is no
> commitment from our side.
>
> to make more rationale assessment, I am attaching the proposals and
> questionnaire. the former describe the program while the latter is to
> be filled with we think useful for us. when I checked it, I clearly
> excluded any item related to drafting comment.
>
> At NCUC EC level, we discussed this and we decided that we should
> explore different proposals and alternatives on how we can support
> policy development and our members. Just bluntly rejecting won't be
> bring any benefit and we have to work on: increasing our policy
> capabilities and engaging our members. We are trying to take a more
> proactive approach here. so your inputs and suggestions would be
> helpful for the EC to work on that.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2016-04-26 18:17 GMT+09:00 Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>:
>
> 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
> <mailto: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 <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
>>>> <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 <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 <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>
> Ayden Férdeline
> Statement of Interest
> <https://links6.mixmaxusercontent.com/aMjjKHWxnLSD3SEwj/l/Ba5EPu18QxKjl9CEw?messageId=m0ilwWNvRnaRhmVWp&rn=&re=IyZy9mLjV3Yu5yc0NXasB0czV3YzlGZtMWdj5mI>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
--
Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20160426/f584b1c0/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list