[NCUC-DISCUSS] Pilot Program
Karel Douglas
douglaskarel at gmail.com
Tue Apr 26 16:19:26 CEST 2016
Hi ALL,
The word "pilot" strongly suggests that it is a 'test'...'a trial'. It is
not a mandate or edict that was presented for immediate adoption.
Based on the outcomes of the pilot the NCUC can make an informed decision
and decide to continue , discontinue or amend the project. The options are
unlimited.
Only at the conclusion of the "pilot" can we properly address the concerns
for and against the project. It would be wholly pre-mature to suggest now
that it will compromise our independence etc.
Furthermore there is an *overriding duty* on the EC to consider all and any
such proposal (that appear in the interests of the NCUC) *unless* on the
face of it the proposal is clearly inimical to the interests of the NCUC.
When a proposal is clearly inimical to the interests of the NCUC the EC
will no doubt reject it without more. That would be a proper exercise of
their fiduciary duties as guardians of our independence.
regards
Karel DOUGLAS
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 8:27 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I believe that there are worthwhile opinions to consider on both sides of
> this argument. However, for my part, I agree with those who are saying we
> should not reject the proposal at this point. As Kathy and others have
> pointed out, keeping up with other groups in the GNSO has always been
> challenging. I would hate to see the gap in capacity to engage meaningfully
> in policy discussions grow as a result of other groups getting support that
> we may dismiss as undesirable.
>
> And since this is a pilot project, I suggest that we take part in it, see
> how we can customise it to our ends, and make a more informed decision at
> some later point in time on whether or not we care to continue with a
> staffer helping out (as well as the exact nature of the assistance we
> need). We can, and I believe we should, use this opportunity to test the
> conflicting hypotheses on why this pilot is a good or bad suggestion. And
> there is no finality in any decision we make now. So what’s the worst that
> could happen?
>
> In my relatively limited experience on GNSO working groups, policy staff
> play a crucial role in terms of performing research and collecting
> documents for a working group’s consideration. They also do a great deal of
> drafting, trying to capture the contributions of working group members, as
> well as drafting the eventual consensus decisions that find their way into
> the working groups’ preliminary and final reports. It doesn’t seem to me
> that they inappropriately influence the policy outcomes in any way. I see
> no reason to expect this from a staffer attached to this group. Besides,
> it’s not like we’d let anyone get away with that. :)
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> > On Apr 26, 2016, at 12:09 PM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
> >
> > 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>:
> >> 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.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
> >>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> >>
> >>
> >> Ayden Férdeline
> >> Statement of Interest
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
> > --
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20160426/732c142a/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list