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

[Dan Krimm]

Not much time to weigh in on substance, but this thread caught my 
attention, and I thought I might weigh in with just a bit of framing to 
amplify comments by Avri and others.

The worry with accepting support is that we can become dependent upon 
that support, which is a problem if the existence of that support is 
subject to any whims based on powers we do not control.  Even if there 
are no other strings attached, there is the potential of strings being 
attached on the spur of the moment and leading to substantive 
pressures.  That is a real threat.

If we accept support, it should be under conditions that it is reliable 
and with no substantive strings attached: we use it for whatever we see 
fit because we are best situated to know and decide what our most 
important needs are for any subsidy.  Kathy's point about Maryam is 
well-taken, and this is support well-received since Maryam is responsive 
to our needs -- and my sense is that there is no threat of withdrawing 
Maryam's activities lightly.  Kathy's point about equity in support is 
also well-taken: if others get it we should too.

But we need to insist that we control the uses of such support 
completely (we approve, or veto, the hiring of any personnel involved -- 
if it comes to substantive policy involvement, then we absolutely need 
to ensure we are comfortable with that resource from a policy-substance 
standpoint and may choose a substitute if not), and we also need to make 
sure that the support is well-defined and durable over a long time 
period, ideally indefinitely.  In writing would be nice, too -- can it 
be a binding contract?

Dan


On 12/27/16 10:14 AM, avri doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> First I should say that in the past I have been among the most adamant
> on not using ICANN provided services, but this was in a time long  long
> ago, in an ICANN that did not define its purpose as service to the
> community.  ICANN is a different organization now.  As community we have
> an EC and the need to operate within that context.  We have a very
> spotty record as a constituency at getting our point of view together
> (written consensus statements)  and communicating it.  Frankly, as a WG
> chair, it is embarrassing that we rarely get any comments from NCUC.
> NCUC needs help.  IF we had money, e.g. dues, we could pay for help.  We
> don't have dues, we don't have money, yet still we need help.
>
> So I am rethinking old stubbornness.
>
> On 26-Dec-16 10:51, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>> 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.”
> I started banging the drum of impact assessments over a decade ago.  We
> still don't do them, we still don't have a means of getting them done.
> I would love to see someone hired by ICANN on our behalf working on a
> few of these to see how they came out.  We would be the ones judging and
> we have some brutal reviewers in our midst.  Something useful might
> emerge.  Certainly more than we have now, perhaps something that could
> perhaps be built upon.
>
> I suggest that next time we have an opportunity to participate in a
> funding opportunity, NCUC participate and figure out how to use it to
> NCUC's advantage. And of course we need to manage it, but that is why we
> have an Exec Committee.
>
> avri
>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss