[NCUC-DISCUSS] NomCom Review

[Raoul Plommer]

>
> I think the insinuation that bribes are being paid to nomcom members, even
> in rare circumstances is a ludicrous accusation and I would like for you to
> retract it. Some of this communities best actors participate in nomcom on
> behalf of all our organisations, how would we as NCUC feel if such
> accusations were levelled at Bill or Rafik or Brenden? Unless you have
> documentary evidence of such things I think its best not to run around
> slandering members of the community.
>

This is big business to the tune of billions. I think it's ludicrous to
state that bribery never takes place in ICANN. People get killed for far
less monies. But this is besides my point and it's insistence can be seen
as a willing effort to derail the real conversation we should be having.


> To be honest I think that you need to speak with people from other
> constituencies more, if you think that they are all getting paid hourly
> rates to participate in ICANN and are getting rich of this there is a lot
> of learning to be done.
>

I'm using simplifications to make my points as understandable and concise
as possible, but no, I do not think all the others are getting rich of
their participation in the ICANN. However, there still is a big difference
for getting paid for your work, as opposed to not making your living off
your participation. I think we' in the NCSG are all priviledged to be able
to contribute our time. At best, we can use our work for the freedom and
equality of the internet within the NCSG to advance our own personal
profile for jobs that they can make a living with, like consultancy or
getting paid for conducting research on Internet governance, for example.


> And I personally would prefer EC members who say where we can work with
> others and get stronger as an SG rather than ones that seem to prefer to
> attack the very people who those of us out in the PDPs and on the
> committees and teams work with day in day out. By isolating ourselves and
> putting ourselves onto some moral high ground and looking down on them we
> do ourselves a disservice and its certainly an attitude that will get us
> nowhere in the long run.
>

I'm not looking down on anyone. The others are fulfilling their missions,
just like us. They just happen to be prioritising on controlling people and
making profits off of them, perhaps not as an individual, but as the
collective they are representing. I could make a comparison between the
SGs' bylaws to confirm this. Keeping the Internet free and equal will
eventually help all the SG's. We have a far harder task, we are underpaid
and outnumbered in keeping the playing field level for all the SGs in the
long run. It's not just a moral high ground, it's been proven in the past.
Corporations make decisions looking at quarterly reports and states work
according to ~4yrs election periods. We need to be thinking about a much
larger canvas and that should be reflected in the NomCom, that selects some
of the most important leadership positions in ICANN. One out of seven is
just preposterous.

*Tatiana*:
>Some of the work they do is outside of their paycheck hours. Long hours.
Furthermore, NonCommercial SG members can do private consultancies and
guess what, get paid for it. Some of us get good payment for protecting
non-commercial interests and yes, get paid for hours they spent at ICANN
(not my case, but there are cases to make, and I find it great that
people get paid for this work).

People work overtime to keep their jobs all the time but there's a big
difference of getting at least a normal day's salary for working in ICANN,
or getting nada for it. It's not the case for everyone, but it's the trend,
if you will. I really wish more of us got paid to work on our common
issues, too.

>"Yes, we *might* have different interests but we can also have aligned
goals."

I haven't contradicted this at any point but you guys insist on this. It
can seem like a concerted effort to paint me something that I'm not. We are
bound to have courses of action, where all the SGs win. But there's usually
always at least one, that wins less. I want to see human rights losing
less, because like I've said, our success has resulted in better businesses
and states, too - in the long run. They should recognise the fact, that we
really are aligned in their favour and are somewhat neutral in our role. We
just want to keep it free and equal for all. If you'd trust one of the SG's
with more power, wouldn't it be an SG, that is based on human rights,
rather than profits?

*Ayden*:
>"We may at times claim to speak on behalf of certain voices, but unlike a
business where a consumer can decide not to buy a product that does not
meet their standards, we're here whether we deliver or not."

Well, if our representational share in all the leadership positions is as
low as it is, we might as well be not delivering. The internet is certainly
not becoming freer, as it is. I want to welcome everyone in the NCSG to
discuss, what arguments would be the best for gaining another seat or two
in the NomCom. My point about non-com vs commercial interests should be one
of them. Without these arguments, we will continue in fighting an uphill
battle that is unnecessarily steep and will wear all of us down.

I'm guessing Bill's notion of new constituencies because of the gTLDs would
consist of different kinds of business models also. The non-commercial
interests are being diluted, as we speak and we need to fight back. We do
not need to think of ourselves on a pedestal, we just need to tell the
other SG's like it is. Condescending tones aren't necessary, but sometimes
useful, like in the case of Facebook in China.

-Raoul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20161125/cd7624a7/attachment.html>