[NCUC-DISCUSS] WBC Global policy support pilot - is NCUC participating in it?

Tue Dec 27 10:50:35 CET 2016

Milton,

When someone has a good point, I acknowledge it. But beating down my perspective by saying that I do not “listen to the voice of experience” neither makes yours stronger nor better, particularly when we are discussing something in the abstract that the NCUC has not previously tested.

I did not dismiss your position; I listened to it and sincerely tried to see things from your perspective, and have conceded already that I do not view this offer of support from ICANN as being without strings attached, but I still disagree with your assessment.

To quote, again, from the proposed framework, “the programme will be designed to offer the flexibility for communities to identify the specific areas in which they are most comfortable utilising the new resource to assist and expand the capability of their community to participate in the ICANN drafting process.”

We get to decide how we want our resources used.

We could, for example, use this support to document our past policy positions (the construction of an observatory of past, endorsed positions in an archived and searchable manner) to build institutional knowledge.

The uses are endless, and it’s up to our EC to decide how we maximise its use.

It’s not about substituting our own people for ICANN staffers. This is about providing us with basic support to help alleviate volunteer burn-out .

Ayden Férdeline
[linkedin.com/in/ferdeline](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [NCUC-DISCUSS] WBC Global policy support pilot - is NCUC participating in it?
Local Time: 26 December 2016 3:51 PM
UTC Time: 26 December 2016 15:51
From: milton at gatech.edu
To: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org>, ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>

Ayden

I am not sure why you are not willing to listen to the voice of experience. The main point of my post was how much control we have over _who_ does the work, and you seem to have ignored this question in your reply. Clearly, we will have no control over that and before you characterize this as a “generous offer of support” I think you need to ask yourself that question.

I also think it shows a lack of experience in policy processes to think that we can _outsource_ the ability to “assess the impact of proposals.” Someone in NCSG will have to read and understand policy proposals before we can be full participants in the policy process. That cannot be delegated. Before you understand the implications of proposals, you can’t do research about them or assess their impact on our interests. This cannot be outsourced, and if it can be, I don’t quite understand what is the purpose of having constituencies in the GNSO.

Note taking and summaries of WG calls? That is a staff function that already happens on most of the Adobe Connect meetings I have been on. ICANN summaries are fairly useful, better than nothing, but even there to get a true sense of what is happening politically and procedurally you have to be there. Staff members or hired functionaries simply cannot be substitutes for our own people who know what they are doing.

As a final note, Ayden, let me point out that you have been a factor in bringing to everyone’s attention the critical draft report on the At Large review. While you and the reviewers accurately identify some of the problems with At Large, you seem to not understand the fundamental cause of those problems, which is that AL is _completely_ dependent on ICANN staff for everything it does. This makes AL a creature of ICANN more than a legitimate representative of individual internet users. It’s odd that you seem so enthusiastic about leading NCSG down the same path.

Dr. Milton L. Mueller

Professor, School of Public Policy

Georgia Institute of Technology

[ ]

From: Ayden Férdeline [mailto:icann at ferdeline.com]
Sent: Monday, December 26, 2016 1:21 AM
To: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
Cc: matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org>; ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] WBC Global policy support pilot - is NCUC participating in it?

I have not seen anyone on this list suggest that we want to outsource the “drafting [of] our own policy statements and developing our own positions”. If that was the only offer on the table, I don't think many would support it.

My understanding was that there were five proposed support areas, only one of which involved drafting documents, and the others involved assisting us in note taking or summarising working group calls, completing desk-based research where we request it, and helping us assess the impacts of proposals. We do need support in all of these areas. In the RDS PDP WG, there are literally tens of thousands of pages of reading material. If we could have someone code these documents and summarise them, it would be incredibly helpful for all of our members participating in that working group.

Importantly, and I am quoting now from the proposed framework, “the programme will be designed to offer the flexibility for communities to identify the specific areas in which they are most comfortable utilising the new resource to assist and expand the capability of their community to participate in the ICANN drafting process.”

That, to me, sounds very appropriate. It is up to us to define the level of support we will accept, and I am sure that is what every other constituency and stakeholder group has done. We have not seen them turn down this generous offer of additional resources, and I am certain they were just as cautious as we have been to ensure that the support they accept is assistance they are comfortable with.

Best wishes,

Ayden Férdeline

[linkedin.com/in/ferdeline](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline)

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] WBC Global policy support pilot - is NCUC participating in it?

Local Time: 26 December 2016 5:07 AM

UTC Time: 26 December 2016 05:07

From: milton at gatech.edu

To: matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org>, ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>

Yes, we did reject it. And we should continue to reject it. The day we are incapable of drafting our own policy statements and developing our own positions is the day we should declare ourselves intellectually bankrupt and dissolve the constituency, or turn it over to someone who can actually represent the constituency rather than have ICANN staff do it.

Dr. Milton L. Mueller

Professor, School of Public Policy

Georgia Institute of Technology

Didn't we reject this option when it was presented to us? Unfortunately

On 22/12/2016 11:19, James Gannon wrote:

Oh great point, I had forgotten. Whats the status on this?

From: Ncuc-discuss <ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org> on behalf of Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
Date: Thursday 22 December 2016 at 11:01
To: NCUC-discuss <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] WBC Global policy support pilot - is NCUC participating in it?

Hi,

Whatever happened to that ICANN pilot programme which was to offer selected constituencies and stakeholder groups assistance with policy research and document drafting? I remember being told in Helsinki its launch was imminent, and had an excellent discussion with a consultant from WBC Global about it. Are there any updates?

Thanks,

Ayden Férdeline

[linkedin.com/in/ferdeline](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline)

_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss

--
------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20161227/3d525f5c/attachment.html>