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

[Edward Morris]

 Hello everybody,
  
 I hope everyone is enjoying their holidays and getting a bit of rest. ICANN, however, never sleeps so I did want to briefly step into the conversation concerning the NCUC and ICANN staff support. To those looking for an executive summary here it is: I completely agree with Milton, only more so. I believe we already accept too much tied help from ICANN, such help comes with strings and invariably reduces our independence and authority. I see no evidence that the tied help we already get has in any way increased our policy output or effectiveness in ICANN. In fact, quite the opposite.
  
 Four years ago we had a similar conversation about the establishment of a secretariat of sorts. That resulted in the NCUC, NPOC and the NSCG sharing a staff member. We were told that by accepting such help it would free us up to do more policy work, it would increase our effectiveness within ICANN. Has it?
  
 I see little evidence that it has. Fewer people seem to be doing fewer public comments than when I first joined this group. We had some terrific comments last year on the Accountability issues. Special thanks should go to unpaid volunteer Robin Gross for doing such incredible organization there. On core PDP topics, though, except for an occasional effort by a motivated individual (thanks Farzi, Ayden and Kathy), we’ve been fairly absent from the comment forums. Where is all the extra energy and focus that having a staff member handling administrative activities was supposed to bring to us. The pre-Secretariat NCUC appeared to me to do more policy work, more effectively, than that which we’re currently doing. I’m not saying the Secretariat certainly is responsible for any decrease in output but I would postulate it hasn’t done much to help it.
  
 Of course, as Avri notes, lots of things have changed here. The transition took a lot of our resources. We grew but I’m not sure we grew in ways that correspond to growth that will be helpful in the long term in traditional ICANN policy spheres. Yes, we need to do outreach but we need to start doing it to bring in professional expertise in fields where our opposition already has this expertise. Many joined us for the transition. As transition related activities have decreased, though, some have already become less active and others expect they will become less so once work stream two ends in June. We need to be prepared for the post transition ICANN and retaining a staff member employed by ICANN to help write policy briefs for us is not the direction we should be going in. We need to bring in volunteers who know the subject matters under discussion to help write these briefs, not rely upon ICANN to help us through the issues.
  
 Of course, the staff person provided apparently could be used for activities other than writing policy briefs. Ayden mentioned development of an archive as one possibility. In fact, unpaid volunteer Roy Balleste started work on one, pairing the NCUC with St. Thomas University in the effort. Due to some sad events Roy had to leave active participation in the NCUC, although I always hope events will allow him to some day to come back. Roy worked and worked hard. I do note, however, we already have a staff member who could do the archive, to pick up where Roy left off, if so instructed. If this is so important than why hasn’t the instruction been given?
  
 That model, though, is one I do support, the one pairing the NCUC with a nonprofit institution to help develop our group and goals. What I could do with a clinic of postgraduate law students under faculty supervision assigned to do research for us on IP issues. The IPC wouldn’t know what hit it. Working with those of us in the working groups, the EC could very easily approach institutions asking for such in kind help directly related to our policy goals. I would not be opposed to a program designed to use ICANN money to help generate that type of support.
  
 We have ICANN programs we have not used effectively. The CROPP program could be an answer to some of our specialized recruitment woes. Yet we don’t seem to target need in using that program. In fact, we’ve apparently decided to cut the number of trips we’ll be funding this year, instead hosting a general outreach program or receptions of some sort instead of accepting all five CROPP trips. We fund people, using our own funds as well as ICANN’s, to go to the IGF. With all the folks we sent to the IGF, funded both by the NCUC and ICANN, what concrete improvements to our policy positions within ICANN resulted from that expenditure? Heck, it used to be that those who accepted trip funding were required to write blog posts about their experience. I know I certainly did. I’m still waiting to read about the IGF trips. 
  
 I might note that while many of our members were in Mexico, Stefania and I cranked out two last minute ICANN public comments. Is it really lack of staff support that prevents us from working efficiently, is it really volunteer burn out (something that is very real) that is at play here or is it a focus on extraneous issues and poor deployment of resources, volunteer and other, that we already have that is the problem here.
  
 I would posit that the Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups have three basic core  functions: 1) to recruit and support our Councillors, 2) to recruit and support members in working groups and 3) to write public comments on behalf of noncommercial users of the internet. We have other purposes but those three functions are the core. I don’t believe we’re doing a very good job at any of these. Until we do so I’d suggest we drawback on a lot of superfluous stuff, the stuff that is nice to have but not core to our goals, and try to focus on what we are here to do. Per Milton:
  
 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.
  
 I agree with that statement. It’s a slippery slope. First we take administrative help, then just a bit of policy help, then…ALAC. I’d suggest that although NCUC’s work on policy may not please some members of the community few if any question the integrity with which it is formulated. The same is not true of ALAC’s work. One of the guessing games during the CCWG was trying to figure out which staff member(s) produced ALAC’s comments, comments that invariably supported Board positions.  Some, like Richard Hill, have already described the NCUC as being no more than window dressing for other interests. He’s wrong, so far. The minute we start accepting dedicated ICANN help on policy matters, though, we have at the very least a problem of perception if not one of fact. In politics, and this is a very political institution, perception is reality, whether it should be or not. Once we subcontract policy work of any type to ICANN our legitimacy as an independent voice should and will be questioned.
  
 I should note that I am not opposed to receiving all types of ICANN support. To the contrary, the key here is what type of support we accept.  I was part of a small group of volunteers, as was Robin, who identified, interviewed, and hired the independent law firms that provided legal advice to the CCWG-Accountability group. We made some people very wealthy. The lawyers were hired by us, answered to the CCWG, could have been fired by the CCWG…in short, we were in complete control although ICANN footed the bill. And t worked. I never had any question as to where the loyalty of the Adler and Sidley attorney’s lay.
  
 It’s about more than control, though, it’s about independence and, as Dan has pointed out, dependence. The CCWG was always going to be a short term project. What we are speaking about here is more structural and long term in nature. That is why I would generally be opposed to any sort of one on one assigned ICANN staff member working with us on policy matters. Even if we were in complete control as to the selection of the staff, something we have no indication ICANN would ever give us, our dependency on this staff provision could become a problem. To quote Kathy:
  
 But we now have MaryAm Bakoshi working with us and could not imagine a world in which we did not have her support.
  
 Do we ever want to make the same statement about any individual or group that ICANN provides to the NCUC with a remit of working with us on policy? Do we ever want to be in a position where ICANN corporate could withdraw a staff member whose role in NCUC policy participation and production was one in which “we could not imagine a world in which we did not have her (or his) support”? I would suggest the answer to these queries is ‘no’.
  
 I certainly understand the attractiveness of having a dedicated staff member working with us on policy. Yet that slippery slope is here and alive and I’d suggest we need to stop the slide before we can’t pull back. What became MaryAm’s position was sold to us as just a bit of administrative help that would allow us to focus on policy. Now that role is seen by some as almost indispensable. We’re now being asked to accept a bit of help with constructing policy documents so we can (?) focus on policy? What next?
  
 Rather than rely upon ICANN I’d suggest our initial response should be internal. Let’s start focusing our energies less on general internet governance issues and more on ICANN issues. When someone asks me my views on internet governance my response is quite simple: no thanks. The NCUC, like ICANN, is tasked with a very limited remit, principally the three core tasks I listed above. Let’s start focusing on those tasks, expanding our activities into general areas only once we have those covered, if ever.
  
 Let’s focus our outreach on need rather than numbers. We certainly require people with a high level of preexisting IPR knowledge in the RPM group. I assume the same is true in WHOIS related groups regarding knowledge of privacy issues. As we conclude the CCWG-Accountability project we need to bring in people with a passion for and knowledge of core ICANN activities. While welcoming everyone, specialists rather than generalists should be our recruitment goal until we are restocked. We are at crisis level for certain essential subject matter expertise. An ICANN staffer is not the solution here.
  
 Of course, none of this solves the problem of other parties being given assistance by ICANN that we refuse, other parties being advantaged as a result. It also doesn’t recognize that there are areas we could use some help in that is appropriate for ICANN to provide. Such a plan to address these legitimate and equitable needs and desires must guarantee, though, that those services that touch in any way upon policy are both independent from ICANN in terms of policy prescription and do not create a dependency upon it for the NCUC. I have a proposal that would do just that.
  
 Any assistance in the policy area should be provided on a request basis at the GNSO level. Rather than create a structure of dependency and rivalry as with the current WBC Beta, a structure whereby resources are shared by all GNSO Stakeholder groups and managed by the GNSO community might provide the benefits supporters see in the WBC beta without the drawbacks.  To wit, services could be contracted by ICANN but the providers selected and managed by the community. The model used for this would be the hiring and retention of independent council by the CCWG. Once retained, policy support personnel would be utilized on an ad hoc basis by request of the constituencies and stakeholder groups. The process could be managed by ICANN’s policy development department and measures created to ensure equitable access and use, if desired, by any and all SG’s. Retained personnel would be assigned projects based upon their expertise rather than assignment to a particular constituency or stakeholder group.
  
 For those familiar with the staffing procedures of the US Congress the difference between my proposal and the WBC Beta might seem familiar. The WBC beta model is similar to the staffing of individual offices of the members of Congress except, of course, the staff in this case is hired not by the policymaker but by the institution itself. My proposal is structured along the lines of the General Accountability Office (GAO), an institution that is used by all Members of Congress, Democrat and Republican alike. The GAO is nonpartisian, independent and is managed through a selection process that involves both Congress and the Executive branch. This depersonalizes staff loyalty and assignment, increases professionalism, allows for specialization within the unit providing services and, if hired and reporting to the community, reduces the problem of independence and dependence.
  
 That said, before accepting or proposing any help from ICANN I’d suggest we ask ourselves what problem  this paid staff provided by ICANN is intended to solve and first try to solve it ourselves. I have faith in the capabilities of our new EC and hope and expect they will creatively and energetically try to tackle the issues involved in a way that may obviate the need for any paid ICANN assistance, particularly that which involves a corporation like WBC which, as Milton noted, exists largely to help people frustrate and defeat those policies our Constituency exists to promote and enact.
  
 Happy New Year,
  
 Ed

  
  
  
  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20161228/e9ed942d/attachment-0002.html>