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

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi,

I am personally undecided on whether or not we should accept assistance in policy work from ICANN. I don’t believe we have enough information on this to make an informed decision, nor do I believe that we have had sufficient discussion within NCUC to make any sort of determination. I’ve been trying to find some reference documents on the current status of the pilot program, and the latest one I could find is the document (attached) from January 1st 2016, which I found using a google search. Before flat our rejecting NCUC’s involvement, I advise engaging in any review of this pilot and determining to what extent and under what conditions we would agree or disagree to receive assistance.

Having said that, I find the concerns raised by Milton and Ed to be very valid, and we should hopefully pay attention to these concerns moving forward. I also hope that in the event we do agree to receive assistance, it does not in any way replace the role our members perform particularly in terms of researching and drafting policy positions. Other areas where assistance may be helpful could possibly be taking notes during NCSG policy calls as well as ensuring that we don’t miss relevant inputs that scope in to policy topics we are considering. Generally speaking, we do really need to be very specific in identifying how this kind of support would be of benefit to us before we agree to it. This would include what areas we may have deficiencies in, and to what extent we find it appropriate to accept support in these areas. Ideally, we should also be able to set indicators on how effective the program would be in supporting non-commercial representation in policy development in the GNSO, as well as mitigating any risk in potential increased complacency in NCUC fulfilling its mission.

Some of the problems we face that have been mentioned (volunteer burnout, missing submission on important public comment periods, inputs to PDPs, etc…) are ones I do not believe this program can solve. We need to work out our own procedural problems and increase our pool of active volunteers to address these issues. From a strategic perspective, I doubt that ICANN would want to displace the role we play with that of paid consultants. Representation of various special interest groups (including our own) in ICANN processes is what gives ICANN the legitimacy it needs to host gTLD policy development. My guess is that ICANN won’t want to mess with that, nor should we. I do look forward to this discussion continuing to determine a way we can engage in this program provided that it doesn’t affect our independence or authority over our work.

I want to also address a point Ed raised, and give my own personal perspective:

> On Dec 28, 2016, at 3:23 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at TOAST.NET> wrote:

[SNIP]

> 
> 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.

Although it is true that we haven’t been making as many submissions drafted by NCSG/NCUC over the past couple of years (relative to the increasing number of topics), it is important to point out that in other ways we are doing much better than we were four years ago. Four years ago (pre CCWGs), our participation in working groups was terribly deficient. I can only recall a handful of folks (possibly less than 5) who were actually actively involved in working groups, which is the bottom layer of the bottom-up policy development process. Since then, we’ve had new members come in who’ve participated very actively in both GNSO WGs as well as CCWGs. Non-commercial participation in that regard has increased dramatically. I believe this is a truth that would be confirmed if we were to also also ask staff, or other groups from within the ICANN community. This includes participation in subgroups on these various WGs, as well as on the GNSO Council. There are three huge PDPs that have commenced work over the past year, and we have three members (Avri Doria, Kathy Kleiman and David Cake) who are also co-chairs on those PDPs. I’m not saying that our participation on these groups is on par with other SGs/constituencies. Far from it, and there is significant room for improvement. But the individually motivated members we have working on an exponentially growing number of topics is very palpable to me, and should be to anyone who’s paying attention. Folks doing the heavy lifting on those have my gratitude and support.

I do agree with Ed in that there is no evidence to support that any increase or decrease in participation on our part is in any way associated with the secretariat support we are receiving. I find it puzzling that Ed brought this up in the same context as our performance, and hope that folks will not misunderstand what he was saying on this point.

Anyway…, I do appreciate all the views being brought forward, and will always encourage any discussions that attempt to address improving our participation and working methods. I hope folks will carry on, and that there will be appropriate follow-up to this. What I would caution against is taking an absolute position on this without doing the due diligence we need to get done internally before making any kind of decision.

Thanks.

Amr

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Doc Dev  Drafting Pilot v12 (002).pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 85873 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20161228/16f2effe/attachment-0002.pdf>