[NCUC-DISCUSS] Pilot Program

Tue Apr 26 22:03:05 CEST 2016

Dear all,

I am personally new to the process and still learning from all of you here.

That being said,

1. I think that the "Pilot" program, as its name indicates, is an
experiment which will be followed by a keen assessment of its results and
effectiveness so the NCUC can decide to continue, dismiss or make some
improvements to it.

2. I also think that getting support does not necessarily mean an
interference or a threat to the integrity of the constituency.

3. NCUC can be in command of the matter and designate a person of its
choice.

So, my opinion is a *Yes* to the Pilot Program and let's see where this
takes us.

2016-04-26 19:11 GMT+01:00 Benjamin Akinmoyeje <benakin at gmail.com>:

> To be candid I am for the pilot program irrespective of the dangers or
> opportunities the program offers.
> It is an experiment, every great thing that happened in life come through
> some form of pilot - intended or accidental, especially as it offers to
> help reduce the burden of overworked volunteers and help to engage inactive
> members in some to be identified ways.
> More over, if I get the conversation correct this was an offer to all the
> ICANN communities.
>
>
>
> There have also been some interesting points that have been raised in this
> conversation that I would like us to take note of , such as
> -  the role experience and inexperience play in the over all NCUC
> participation effectiveness in the ICANN ecosystem.
> - The different incentives that motivate the various faction in NCUC.
> - what will the outcome be if the consensus is at odd with the EC?
> - finally on a lighter note , what makes some individuals see trojan and
> others horses?
>
> These are just my thoughts - staying up struggling with insomnia far away
> from my country :(
> Thank you,
> Benjamin
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 6:48 PM, Dan Krimm <dan at musicunbound.com> wrote:
>
>> Seems to me that your point about managing this staff person becomes
>> crucial: "If we use ICANN staff and they are truly under our control, then
>> we have to tell them what we want, when we want it, and how to do it..."
>>
>>  * First off, we need real and clear authority in the hiring of such
>> person
>> (that is, we can veto outright any candidate we feel is not aligned with
>> our needs, for any reason without having to get the veto "approved" in any
>> way by ICANN).  We have to have real "hiring and firing authority" or else
>> it's not to our advantage.  That person needs to know that we can boot
>> them
>> for cause if they obstruct our mission, and in such case they would not
>> get
>> administrative cover from ICANN.  This is a prerequisite, I think, for
>> moving forward (I think this is what you must mean by "truly under our
>> control").  In an operational sense, this becomes "NCUC staff" even if
>> funding comes from ICANN corp.
>>
>>  * Second, once this is established, the funding for the position needs to
>> be reliable and sustained (otherwise we can't get the best person).
>>
>>
>> Providing we get the right person in the role, perhaps that person will be
>> tasked with being pro-active about "extracting" direction decisions from
>> the constituency and its committees -- especially with oversight from the
>> active leaders of the group in EC and elsewhere.  Also, whatever
>> administrative processes and materials emerge from this role need to be
>> explicitly provided to Chair and EC at least, in order that any change in
>> this staffing can be handed off smoothly without reinventing the wheel
>> each
>> time.
>>
>> In short, part of the job description should be to off-load as much as
>> possible of the administrative transaction cost onto the paid position
>> itself.  This can come from monitoring collective discussions and perhaps
>> at certain points suggesting codifications pro-actively in order to meet
>> deadlines, etc.  Constant ongoing simultaneous distillation of discussion
>> with periodic reality check feedback might be an efficient way to smooth
>> the process.
>>
>> We tend to do this informally and ad hoc anyway, but if this process can
>> be
>> "regularized" a bit such formalized active listening might allow the group
>> to get through things on a more timely basis if this role takes on a
>> leadership stance in administrative respects.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> PS: Not to toot my own horn as a priority, but I happen to be in a career
>> transition at present, and could be available for paid work.  I haven't
>> had
>> much space for volunteering here since 2007, and frankly don't keep up
>> with
>> all the policy details flowing through this list.  This now counts as
>> "looking for work" under the provisions of California's unemployment
>> insurance benefit system.  ;-)  Just, I hope this could be done via
>> telecommuting -- not interested in relocating back down to L.A. from the
>> Bay Area.
>>
>>
>>
>> At 2:40 PM +0000 4/26/16, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>> >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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160426/3a7937d5/attachment-0002.html>