[NCUC-DISCUSS] Pilot Program

Wed Apr 27 08:22:08 CEST 2016

Hi,
Regarding pilot program,  I kept reading your answer since  yesterday to
understand better,  because I am a new member on board.
I think that Pilot program, is an opportunity offered to us,  especially
that our community lacks support. It is an experience we can have,
evaluate then take it or leave it for other possibilities for improving our
community.
So I do agree to have this experiment.
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
>
>

_______________________________________________
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/20160427/c2ea7d30/attachment-0002.html>