[NCUC-DISCUSS] Questions and talking points for ICANN CEO

Wed Aug 29 10:55:13 CEST 2018

Hi Farzaneh,

> It is not true that NCSG did not have a position on this. It did have a position and we asked Ayden to change the paragraph in budget public comment  to convey that but he decided to delete it and we did not pay attention.

I did not respond to this baseless allegation the previous two times you made it, but if you insist on repeating it, I have little choice but to respond.

This is untrue. The NCSG did not have such a position. You had a personal objection to the Intersessional, but that alone does not make it an NCSG position. On the Google Doc for the budget comment numerous individuals expressed support for the Intersessional (substantially more than opposed it, which was three from memory). So there was no clear consensus either in support of, or in opposition to, the continuation of the Intersessional.

In addition, there have been numerous threads on the NCSG and NCUC mailing lists over the past five years where individuals have made compelling cases for the Intersessional. [Take this one, for instance.](https://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2016-October/019318.html) It is simply not true to say that the NCSG had a position here, and to suggest I somehow sabotaged it is laughable. If you look at the threads on our list, I think an objective observer would say, more people support the Intersessional than don't.

Finally, this is the NCUC list, Farzaneh. I did not bring up this issue on the NCSG list asking for a response from the NCSG Chair. Rather, as an NCUC member myself, I asked the NCUC Chair and her Executive Committee to justify their actions as they negatively impact NCUC members. The catalyst for my question was the NCUC Chair stating she would speak to the CEO about building our capacity development, when pre-approved resources which could be re-purposed for capacity development are being rejected with no justification.

> This really won't affect me personally, I only wanted to save the volunteers time and energy.

This also does not impact me personally. I am busy enough at the moment. But having been fortunate enough to participate in two Intersessionals, I know how important this forum is and strongly believe other NCUC members should be able to participate in it. To shut the door to others on something I have personally benefited from, well, I won’t do it. As past delegates we have a duty to improve the Intersessional where it needs improving, not to harm the NCUC by rejecting a core item in the budget. And given how difficult it is for something to progress from being a pilot program to a core budget item should also say something about how important it is perceived by other Stakeholder Groups and by ICANN org.

Kind regards,

Ayden Férdeline

> On 29 Aug 2018, at 09:17, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Stephanie
>
> I find your email utterly offensive. This was not a decision that was discussed last minute. It was something we discussed over and over during my term before I even decided to step down (in February). It is not true that NCSG did not have a position on this. It did have a position and we asked Ayden to change the paragraph in budget public comment  to convey that but he decided to delete it and we did not pay attention. I am always for consulting with members and have included them in decision making as much as I could any attempt to imply otherwise is just unfair.
>
> But I guess it's easy to criticize. We have an expression that says this camel will sleep at your door too. It will. In fact this camel sleeps at every chair's door. [of course the Middle Eastener has a camel in the expression]
>
> This really won't affect me personally, I only wanted to save the volunteers time and energy. But let the travel circus continue its missionless intersessionals. We can discuss this on NCSG mailing list or simply leave it and see what CSG says.
>
> Farzaneh
>
> I have pasted the discussions for others to know:
>
> --------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> Date: Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 3:57 AM
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Proposed NCSG Comment on the FY19 Budget
> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> Cc: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>, Milton Mueller <milton at gatech.edu>
>
> Thanks for your comments on the Budget in the Google Doc, Rafik; I've replied directly and done my best to resolve your concerns. In particular please note the re-worded paragraph # 9 (constituency travellers). I'll put your question in #6 to Xavier on Monday when the [GNSO Council] Standing Committee on Budget and Operations has its next call with Finance.
>
> I have now removed the paragraph about the Intersessional, as perhaps it is better to be silent here rather than to praise something which may not have widespread support. This year's Intersessional was a trainwreck but I do think this is a disaster we have to own. Last year's Intersessional was brilliant. What was the difference? It wasn't content (as you said Rafik, the content rarely changes), but I do think it was the participant mix. Our 'side' was too silent at this year's meeting and we didn't have enough strong voices to counter the perspectives being shared by the CSG. When I think back to Reykjavik, I remember how great it was having Kathy and others engaging in real debates with the CSG. I didn't see enough of that this year; I cannot even think of any action items that came out of the forum. With the suggestion circulating (at least during the Council's Strategic Planning Session) that we may need to go down from 3 to 2 ICANN public meetings per year for budgetary reasons, and may want to tie a Council meeting in with the GDD Summit, I am reluctant to relinquish any support allocated to us that has made the core budget. But perhaps we could advocate tying the Intersessional in with the GDD Summit, an idea floated last year? I could see real benefits to that; on some issues, the contracted parties are our allies...
>
> Another thing: the Additional Budget Requests (ABRs). I made the point in this comment that I think it is wrong to cut this community support, because I feel very strongly that to make small cuts here which impact us, without tackling structural issues where the real costs lie, is the wrong approach. But how on earth could we expect ICANN to approve some of them? Some which 'we' submitted are genuinely embarrassing and would be an inappropriate use of funds if approved. I have not said anything on the main mailing list BUT ones like this, i.e. an [NCUC board game](https://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/2018-February/008789.html), should never have been submitted (in my opinion) and harm our reputation. Their submission was an Executive decision made without public consultation on the discussion list. I don't want this to sound like an attack against anyone, as that is not my intention, but I think we need to do some kind of internal reflection before submitting requests. This request for a board game will be seen by the entire community, will be mocked, and let's be real, won't be approved (nor should it!). Why do this to our reputation?
>
> Ayden
>
> -------- Original Message --------On 9 February 2018 8:07 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Ayden,
>>
>> thanks for the draft which is coming at a good time and allow us to work on it without pressure,
>> about the intercessional which is a separate topic not necessarily related to the budget, I am for an evaluation and assessment. I am not that convinced that issues were a matter of planning. The content is almost the same every year, just with small changes of few topics. I think after 5 years or more, it is a good time to review and think about improvement. I believe our CSG friends will be open and welcome that. Organizing it every other year can provide that opportunity and possibility for real change.
>>
>> I will review the budget and add my comments there.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2018-02-09 6:21 GMT+09:00 Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>>
>>> I think this year's Intersessional was unsuccessful, partially because of insufficient planning on our part, as well as the wrong delegates being in attendance. But I do think the concept itself is a good one and one which should continue. I am happy to remove this paragraph from the document altogether, however, if we do not have a common agreement on their value. I don't think it ranks among our most pressing concerns!
>>>
>>> Ayden
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> On 8 February 2018 10:14 PM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am one of those who questions the value of the intersessionals.
>>>>
>>>> I won't support continuing them every year. Every other year is a compromise I can accept.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Tanya
>>>>
>>>> On 08/02/18 20:14, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ayden
>>>>>
>>>>> I’ve had a chance to read your comments and congratulate you on doing so much work to go through the budget and prepare an intelligent evaluation of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with most of the comments but propose a few minor amendments here and there, which I will put onto the Google doc using suggest mode.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only point of disagreement is #17 your support for continued intersessionals. I don’t think there is consensus on that and in fact after the last one I heard several people who supported them question their value or frequency. A good middle ground might be to have them once every other year.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, I’ll enter my comments on the doc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dr. Milton L Mueller
>>>>>
>>>>> Professor, [School of Public Policy](http://spp.gatech.edu/)
>>>>>
>>>>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>>>>>
>>>>> Internet Governance Project
>>>>>
>>>>> http://internetgovernance.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Ayden Férdeline [mailto:icann at ferdeline.com]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 7:27 AM
>>>>> To: ncsg-pc [<ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>](mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is); Mueller, Milton L [<milton at gatech.edu>](mailto:milton at gatech.edu); crg at ISOC-CR.ORG; paul.rosenzweig at REDBRANCHCONSULTING.COM; Corinne Cath [<corinnecath at gmail.com>](mailto:corinnecath at gmail.com)
>>>>> Subject: [Draft] Proposed NCSG Comment on the FY19 Budget
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have prepared a first draft of a proposed NCSG comment on the FY19 budget. This took quite some time to comb through, and I might have missed some things. So before I share this comment on the main discussion list and face the inevitable wrath of criticism and dislike, I thought I might share it here to get some initial feedback. I have also cc'd in a few other people who might not be on this mailing list but who I think might be able to offer some constructive edits on its contents:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tBia4z5QQFGz9vFUQUkS0lbZNqU6C5n4pyUmlH3m8e8/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>
>>>>> Many thanks for your help,
>>>>>
>>>>> Ayden
>>>>>
>>>>> P.S. Carlos, if one sentence looks familiar, it's because I copied and pasted it from an email you sent to the NCSG list last year re: our Reserve Fund comment. I hope this is okay. Thanks!
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 1:55 AM Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
>> The principle is the following, in my view:  outgoing council and chair should not make decisions for incoming, when they will not be there in office (i.e. to do the work.  They should consult.  If it is too late to change this decision, I can assure you that next year, I will consult the incoming folks to get their views.
>>
>> As Ayden says, forfeiting such a large budget amount is a pity.  We could have figured out how to make it useful.
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin
>>
>> On 2018-08-28 23:23, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, Ayden
>>>
>>> I don’t agree with this:
>>>
>>> [ ]
>>>
>>> At stake here is also the principle of membership consultation. The NCUC Executive Committee, as evidenced on its list, has decided to reject the funding for an Intersessional in 2019 without first consulting with NCUC members. This is unacceptable.
>>>
>>> It’s perfectly acceptable to me. The NCUC EC is there precisely to make executive decisions that the general membership is in no position to make, or could not make in a reasonable period of time, or has no knowledge about.
>>>
>>> Intersessionals are a resource allocation issue. They require tons of work and time commitments from the EC and the Chair. In my opinion it’s fine that the EC made a decision that the cost benefit ratio isn’t favorable.
>>>
>>> We will indeed have a new leadership, and if that EC has people on it with different views, they can make a different decision in the future. But I am glad this EC made the decision it made.
>>>
>>> Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>>>
>>> Professor, School of Public Policy
>>>
>>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>>
>>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20180829/d4d63d5d/attachment.html>