[NCUC-DISCUSS] NomCom Review

[Dr. Tatiana Tropina]

I agree with James.

(this email is not related to the fact that I am on the EC ballot).

From working together with other stakeholder groups I know, that many of
people are not paid for all of those long hours they spend on ICANN.
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).

But this was not my main point. Collaboration with the GNSO colleagues
is the key for our success. For example, we would not have been able to
get a human rights bylaw in the accountability proposal if the GNSO
colleagues from Verisign and IPC were not working and fighting for it
together with us. Some of them are still working tirelessly long on
drafting related documents together with noncommercials. We enjoyed
tremendous support from them on other issues. Yes, we *might* have
different interests but we can also have aligned goals.

It's not binary. Speaking of it as money vs. interests of humanity loses
the point at *any* level.

We are talking a lot about multi-stakeholder, I believe one of the
greatest features of "multi" and "stakeholders" is collaboration, not
antagonism.

Warm regards

Tatiana.


On 25/11/16 09:20, James Gannon wrote:
> Ill assume this is targeted at me as I have been the main counterparty, Raoul is running for a seat in my region on the EC, so I do not see this as nitpicking in the slightest, I see this as me asking questions of a candidate for an elected office to determine their position on major issues for me.
>
> How out EC members conduct themselves and how they plan to strategise and move forward with the development and evolution of both our C and SG is incredible important and not a strange conversation at all in my opinion. 
>
> My last email makes it clear that I believe in working with the GNSO colleagues to defend our interests is the way forward, to build a collaborative environment where our views are respected and taken into account and incorporated in policy should be our goal, not shouting down from a moral high ground. 
>
>
> -James
>
>
>
> On 25/11/2016, 06:20, "Ncuc-discuss on behalf of Tapani Tarvainen" <ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org on behalf of tapani.tarvainen at effi.org> wrote:
>
>> This discussion has strayed a bit strangely. It seems people are talking
>> at different levels of abstraction so to speak and getting confused.
>>
>> First there's, let's say philosophical, abstract level, where Raoul's
>> point is obvious: commercial actors are by definition motivated by
>> money, thus not only can be bought but have already been bought.
>>
>> Second, on the level of individual level it is clear, as Matt et al
>> have pointed out, people's motivations are complex and variable,
>> and cannot be reduced to simple money/other division.
>>
>> But for the present purpose, trying to increase our representation
>> and to improve the influence of non-commercial interests, the former
>> is what we should be talking about. It's not the motivations of
>> individuals but what they represent that matters there.
>>
>> Despite of the complexity of the motivations of individual business
>> constituency's representatives, we cannot assume they will also keep
>> non-commercial interests in mind so we don't need to worry about that.
>>
>> They are there to represent business interests, we need to be there to
>> represent non-commercial interests. We should we talking about how to
>> further that goal, rather than nit-picking and fighting with each
>> other about things that don't help us there.
>>
>> -- 
>> Tapani Tarvainen
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss