[Ec-ncuc] Video update

[Edward Morris]

Hi everybody,

I'm in transit and had hoped to wait until stationery before responding but
as things seem to be moving rapidly let me put in my comments before it is
too late.

I was initially enthused about this whole film project. In retrospect, that
enthusiasm may have been misplaced or perhaps a bit too early. I agree with
Bill's comments regarding the content. More than that I'll restate
something those who came to me in Los Angeles with ideas on how to spend
our money or with new innovative ideas  we could to ask ICANN to
financially support were told: The new EC inherited a constituency that was
not a functioning entity. We need to prioritize a rebuild. All major
projects requiring extensive resources or financial support should be
shelved until the rebuild is well underway if not completed.

I appreciate the idea behind the film but I'm not enthused about throwing
any more money into it until our website is up and running. There should be
some graphical cohesion between the web site and the film. As such, I
prefer option 0: Pay what is owed and stop all investment into this project
until we have a functioning web site and, in support of Tapani's comments,
until we have an actual budget and have a better idea as to where we stand
financially. I see no reason to spend more money on a project where the
final output is already considered by some, including myself, as being
potentially outdated. Once the forgoing happens we may even want to spend
more money on the project, should circumstances allow. I don't know. I do
not yet have the facts I need to render a decision. BTW, any idea how much
we have already spent on this project?

If that idea doesn't fly, and I realize in my youth I previously supported
spending $2000 on this project,  I prefer option 1 and let Brenden  try to
work out some student involvement or such to  spice things up. I can reach
out to the USC film school, as well, for some help. As for options 2 or 3:
why spend more money for something that may be before it's time or past
it's time? I'd suggest having Mary and her group work on printed material
for a brochure and a fact sheet is a better use of our volunteer time and
financial resources right now. We need printed matter for the Beijing
outreach and for our current outreach and inreach efforts  so we can begin
our efforts while awaiting finalization of our new web presence.

In summary, there is no rush to get this done. Let's wait until our web
imaging is completed and then revisit our approach to the film project. I
support the idea conceptually, I just want consistent branding and
messaging across platforms and until we've done the other stuff with our
members and volunteers I see no need to produce something that may be
inconsistent with what our e-team comes up with.

Ed

On Friday, February 1, 2013, William Drake wrote:

> PS to Brenden: did Eric have any shots of the audience and panels at the
> Toronto conference?  Maybe blending a few secs of that in to show we do
> stuff that gets crowds and aren't just a half dozen talking heads would be
> good?
>
>
> On Feb 1, 2013, at 11:02 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'william.drake at uzh.ch');>>
> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone
>
> How about we move this to the archived EC list rather than just a Cc line
> of EC members?  And copy in Maria and Mary as the coordinators of the
> Finance and Comm teams as well.
>
> On the process point, and per Tapani and Ed, it'd be healthy to start
> following a standardized workflow in which 1) a team responsible for an
> initiative (on something like this Communication presumably would have been
> the right one) 2) sends a rec to the FT which 3) coordinates with the EC
> and then if approved MM cuts the check within the context of FT-overseen
> account management.  This is what the EPT will be doing with the proposal
> to pull our lists etc. together on an independent server.  Of course
> we don't want to construct unnecessarily rococo bureaucracy, but anything
> that improves the levels of transparency, accountability and collective
> decision making seems better than just having a few folks agree stuff
> informally, especially if we end up acquiring and allocating more resources
> down the line.  Good to get in good habits?.
>
> In this case, the initiative was undertaken by the previous EC and is
> apparently well down the track in terms of financial commitments, so
> perhaps backing up and following such a process would seem silly to some.
> So ok we can short circuit 1 and 2, but let's at least have some record of
> what's been discussed and agreed in the EC by using this list.
>
> On the substance?to be entirely honest, with an election pending and new
> constituency building efforts having been proposed on the members list etc,
> I sort of wish we could have waited on this and done it a bit differently.
>  The production values are high and Eric has got it together, but I'd have
> preferred content that is a little more structured and hit some points that
> nobody mentioned, e.g. NCUC's in a particular phase and launching xyz,
> ICANN's at a turning point with new gTLDs and internal changes and external
> geopolitical challenges that make CS engagement more important, some stuff
> indicating that we're aware of that developing countries exist and are into
> outreach and strategic engagement, etc.  I also think it'd be logical for a
> new video PR effort to have at least a few seconds of new EC members who
> are doing stuff saying outreachy y'all come things etc.  To me, this feels
> like a video NCUC could have shot five years ago, or more.
>
> Given the above, I'd have preferred a second bite at the apple in terms of
> adding in some new content.  But we're not going to fly Eric to Beijing
> with camera in hand, and we can't blend in bits shot with different
> production values.  And he's awaiting instructions.  So I guess we give him
> more money,  option 2, and hope the product proves to be of value in the
> context of larger revamping and messaging efforts??
>
> Bill
>
>
> On Feb 1, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris100 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Carlos,
>
> Who is the coord on funds and where does he get this power from? I can't
> find this person or power in any of our governing documents.
>
> Thanks
>
> Ed
>
> On Friday, February 1, 2013, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>
> Hi Tapani, nope -- we need the input of the coord on funds to decide.
>
> --c.a.
>
>
> ------------
> C. A. Afonso
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Tapani Tarvainen <tapani.tarvainen at effi.org>
> Date: 01/02/2013 06:11 (GMT-03:00)
> To: ca at cafonso.ca
> Cc: Brenden Kuerbis <bkuerbis at internetgovernance.org>,William Drake <
> william.drake at uzh.ch>,Edward Morris <edward.morris at alumni.usc.edu>,Wilson
> Abigaba <wilson at isoc.ug>,Norbert Klein <nhklein at gmx.net>
> Subject: Re: Video update
>
>
> Carlos, I believe you _are_ in a position to decide on NCUC $$$. :-)
> Not alone of course, but as a member of the executive committee.
>
> But, given the discussion in e-team about funding a virtual server,
> I assume the process would be the same: writing the proposal up and
> passing it via finance team (Maria F) and Bill to the EC for decision.
>
> As for the proposal, option 2 does sound good, but I would like a bit
> more info on both how the money would actually be spent as well
> as what NCUCs financial situation actually is, and ideally
> have a budget of some kind drafted first so we could consider
> what other uses there might be for the money.
> But that'd be up to the finance team I presume, so why
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ec-ncuc mailing list
> Ec-ncuc at ipjustice.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'Ec-ncuc at ipjustice.org');>
> http://mailman.ctyme.com/listinfo/ec-ncuc
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ec-ncuc/attachments/20130201/2579651c/attachment.html>