[NCUC-DISCUSS] ABRs - Welcoming suggestions until 14th Jan, noon (utc time).

Wed Jan 23 15:25:40 CET 2019

Hi all,

Just a kind reminder that our ABR deadline is on the 25th. I believe we
already had some good suggestions popping up, so please let us know if
you'd like to join efforts in collaboratively drafting the ABRs in this
last sprint.

All the best,

Louise Marie Hurel

Cybersecurity Project Coordinator | Igarapé Institute

London School of Economics (LSE) Media and Communications (Data and Society)
Skype: louise.dias
+44 (0) 7468 906327
*l.h.dias at lse.ac.uk <l.h.dias at lse.ac.uk> *
louise.marie.hsd at gmail.com

On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 23:31, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net> wrote:

> WBC were merely the contracting firm as was made clear from the outset,
> this was just proven by the fact that the RySG had Wim, someone who has
> been around the IG space for a very long time and that they RySG (Who are
> even pickier than us to be honest) were very happy with. We made mountains
> out of molehills and lost out. We won’t be offered the opportunity again.
>
> On 18 Jan 2019, at 00:17, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>
> The consultancy that ICANN hired to support the RySG was WBC Global, who
> describes themselves on their website as, a "Leading international trade
> government relations consulting firm serving multinational clients ...
> offer[ing] public policy, political and strategic business advice to
> Fortune 500 and other companies."
>
> The RySG offered this testimonial on the ICANN website:
>
> *"Our Document Development and Drafting Research Assistant, Wim Degezelle,
> made a significant contribution in his role of drafting comments to complex
> public comments. His ability to research a topic, communicate with those in
> the RySG who may have some more in-depth knowledge of the issues/topics at
> hand, and then prepare and present salient observations and suggested
> comments has been of incredible benefit to the RySG. Wim’s role facilitated
> participation by RySG members who don’t use English as their first
> language, and better enabled engagement by smaller (or new) registry
> operators who have limited bandwidth, resources and/or knowledge that
> restrict their participation in issues that may have a direct impact on
> their operations. In fact, we saw a notable increase in participation by
> volunteers to partner (or even take a lead role) in developing and/or
> contributing to critical issues requiring formal comments by the RySG."*
>
> I think we could find this service to be very useful ourselves, too.
>
> We could help ICANN identify a suitable consultancy to support our work,
> if we thought WBC Global was not the right fit for us. But they do have
> clients who include non-profits.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden Férdeline
>
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Thursday, January 17, 2019 12:03 PM, Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix <
> rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks. Consultant and RA are two different things, but it would still be
> worthwhile to inquire about that and see if anything good came out of it.
>
> Best,
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 9:15 AM Stephanie Perrin <
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
>> Yes this was actually a pilot program, and we declined to participate.  I
>> don't think it is actually funding per se, it is the use of a research
>> assistant that ICANN has procured (I am not sure how).  Supervision of a
>> research assistant is another responsibility to add to our leadership team,
>> and some may not wish to have that additional responsibility, but if the
>> pilot program is still ongoing, I am willing to inquire about its progress
>> and assessment of its utility.
>>
>> Stephanie
>> On 2019-01-13 19:06, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
>>
>> Hi Raphael,
>>
>> There was a debate on this issue roughly two years ago, and a year before
>> that too. In essence, the Commercial Stakeholder Group accepts funding from
>> ICANN org to use consultants to supplement their research, but we are too
>> proud. In the past, questions have been asked along the lines of, 'Why do
>> we even exist if we cannot do our own research?' I happen to disagree with
>> this view.
>>
>> As for the Fund, I was thinking it would be good to have this resource
>> just there in case we had a need for it in the future; I would certainly
>> hope we would not exhaust it immediately. I would also be reluctant to
>> elaborate on what projects we'd be looking to fund. We want some
>> independence here; sadly, I doubt the research we should be supporting is
>> anything that aligns with the ICANN executive team's view of the world.
>>
>> Ayden
>>
>>
>>
>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>> On Monday, January 14, 2019 12:59 AM, Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix <
>> rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> James: Why would we not get the ABR for the consultant if we ask again?
>> Could you elaborate more on that? I think this idea is focused, narrow and
>> useful enough to get approved. Now I have no idea in ICANN's world what a
>> .5FTE amounts to. <
>>
>> I think your second idea Ayden is interesting as well, but given
>> deadlines now it might be worthwhile to flesh it out more for a next round
>> (hopefully before next year, but I suppose not...?) I think that we would
>> need actual examples of research or advocacy work we want to get done if we
>> are to get any money.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 6:51 PM Stephanie Perrin <
>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> seems like a lot given the total budget of 285K....maybe something a bit
>>> more modest and focused.?
>>>
>>> Stephanie
>>> On 2019-01-13 18:31, James Gannon wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 14 Jan 2019, at 00:22, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Just thinking out loud-
>>>
>>> Could it be useful to request the support of a 0.5 FTE policy consultant
>>> (of the NCSG's choosing), to support our ongoing policy development
>>> activities? I am thinking of someone to document past NCSG policy positions
>>> by creating an archived and searchable observatory of past NCSG, NCUC, and
>>> NPOC statements, and to engage in policy research activities in areas where
>>> volunteer burn-out has us stretched to capacity.
>>>
>>> Good idea, but we will not get it as we rejected the concept before (A
>>> huge mistep by us IMO)
>>>
>>> In addition, could we perhaps ask for a modest, one-off contribution of
>>> $50,000 to 'kick start' a Stakeholder Group Support Fund, given we have
>>> established over the past week on our list that the NCSG has no money. I
>>> would suggest that we would only use this Support Fund to support our
>>> advocacy work and independent research on the DNS, and we would cap spend
>>> at max. $20k/year, and that it would not be used to fund travel.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think that a more specific version of this could be useful, it needs
>>> to be for a specific reason however, a “to do what we want with” won’t get
>>> approved IMO.
>>>
>>> Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>>> On Monday, January 14, 2019 12:01 AM, Bruna Martins dos Santos <
>>> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> Just a quick reminder that the NCUC EC will be receiving Additional
>>> Budget Requests suggestions up until tomorrow *14th Jan, noon (utc). *
>>> best,
>>> Bruna
>>>
>>> Em sex, 11 de jan de 2019 às 16:37, Bruna Martins dos Santos <
>>> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> escreveu:
>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> ICANN Org is receiving additional Budget Requests until Jan 15th.
>>>> Therefore NCUC Leadership would like to welcome your suggestions and ideas
>>>> on possible submissions.
>>>>
>>>> Given that the deadline for submission to ICANN is 15th Jan, * we
>>>> would like to set an internal deadline for constituency
>>>> discussion/receiving of proposals until the 14th Jan, noon (utc).  I would
>>>> also welcome any volunteers to help drafting requests.  *
>>>>
>>>> Please note that the budget requests being accepted now are for the
>>>> fiscal year 2020 (which I believe runs 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020). Also
>>>> bear in mind that in light of some budget cuts being proposed/performed by
>>>> ICANN org, our requests should be strategic and aligned with the NCUC
>>>> mission and values.
>>>>
>>>> Last but not least, for ease of reference, all the FY19 Approved ABRs are
>>>> uploaded here: https://community.icann.org/x/zodHBQ
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> --
>>>> *Bruna Martins dos Santos *
>>>>
>>>> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
>>>> @boomartins
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Bruna Martins dos Santos *
>>>
>>> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
>>> @boomartins
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing listNcuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.orghttps://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
>>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190123/7ec5b774/attachment.html>