[NCUC-DISCUSS] Pilot Program

[Mueller, Milton L]

Excellent questions Dan
Hired staff has its own set of issues not least fundraising, but this is the kind of option we need to be exploring


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ncuc-discuss [mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org] On Behalf
> Of Dan Krimm
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 1:19 AM
> To: ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Pilot Program
> 
> Hmm, now I'm thinking about how to possibly game the system.
> 
> Could we designate a current NCUC member (or several to choose from)
> who otherwise fits the job description to officially recuse from explicit NCUC
> membership?  But then, of course, they'd have to consult with NCUC on any
> related work, so perhaps we could still keep them on the email list to stay
> abreast of discussions, etc.
> 
> Could we end up getting someone sympathetic with our mission actually paid
> to do the work?
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> 
> At 12:24 AM -0400 4/26/16, Edward Morris 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
> >><<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>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
> >><mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> >><http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss>http://li
> >>sts.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> >><mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> >><http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss>http://li
> >>sts.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