[NCUC-DISCUSS] WBC Global policy support pilot - is NCUC participating in it?
Kathy Kleiman
kathy at kathykleiman.com
Tue Dec 27 17:25:11 CET 2016
Strange in this holiday season to be having such deep disagreements.
First, I hope everyone's holidays were and are wonderful. Happy New Year!
Second, if extra resources are made available to one constituency (the
Intellectual Property Constituency, for example), they should be made
available for all constituencies. We would yell to high heaven if they
were not.
Third, it is a fact that we leave many comment period "on the table" and
do not respond to issues of interest and concern to the NCUC. Why? We
hear many reasons including volunteer fatigue, the timeconsuming process
of preparing comments and the time-consuming process of editing them
with the NCUC.
History may serve as a guide in this matter. Several years ago, we
(NCUC) objected heartely to ICANN providing us with administrative
support. But we now have Maryam Bakoshi working with us and could not
imagine a world in which we did not have her support. She sets up our
meetings (arranging phone dialin and Adobe Connect online), makes
recordings available and similar support for in-person meetings,
facilities and recording. It's critical support that does not change our
mission and function - she makes our lives easier and our meetings,
recordings and notes more accessible to our members.
So what if we had a bit more support for other NCUC work? I spent some
time talking with Angie in India, staff support for the Intellectual
Property Constituency under this special "Pilot Program." She iis an
individual with a broad background and spent time as a journalist; she
knows how to write and edit. But she is not a lawyer (and many in the
IPC are). She does not write their comments (they do), but she does
collect bullet points of the topics that various members have identified
for issues and concerns; she does assemble them; a member does the
drafting; and then she helps manage the editing process to show the
edits people are offering (in one place for all to review).
Frankly, this type of work would make the pain of comment writing much
easier; we would be able to generate more comments.
But we have no fight (I believe) right now. The Pilot Project ends on
January 31, 2017 (one month from now). There will be reviews and
evaluations made public from the Constituencies that chose to use this
function, and discussion of how they used it and how successful it was.
The next round (if there is a next round) should run parallel with the
new budget year (which I believe runs July to June).
But Ayden has a point. If the best funded constituencies have MORE
resources from ICANN than NCUC, than we are further behind if we don't
at least consider using similar resources.
And Milton has a point that, that WE have to manage and oversee anyone
assigned to the NCUC. Our message is a critical one in the ICANN sphere
and WE must control it.
But if other Constituencies have managed to balance a) extending their
capabilities without b) losing their editorial and substantive control,
then we may have a formula that works to extend OUR NCUC capabilities,
reach, message and concerns - at least in some areas. There will be some
reports that should help us assess this in the next few months.
Not all gifts are Trojan horses :-)
Best, Kathy
On 12/27/2016 4:50 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
> 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 <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>
>>
>> To: matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>,
>> ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>> <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto: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
>> <mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org>> on behalf of
>> Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>> *Reply-To: *Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>> *Date: *Thursday 22 December 2016 at 11:01
>> *To: *NCUC-discuss <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161227/a5d79c20/attachment.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list