[Ec-ncuc] Video update

William Drake william.drake
Sun Feb 3 05:55:39 CET 2013 

[re-adding Maria and Mary]

Hi Milton

On Feb 2, 2013, at 11:30 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> Folks, I suggest we leave the editing decisions to the professionals and not start poking fingers into minutiae. You?re overseers not micromanagers.

I don't agree that NCUC's elected leadership should have nothing to say about how NCUC is represented in the most expensive outreach tool we'll ever have.  I also don't agree that it should be up that sole discretion of some guy named Eric how NCUC is represented (I assume he is the professional referred to, and that we by extension are not).

> We are trying to convey a simple message in about 3 minutes. A scene of crowds and audiences makes the subject of the video ?the Toronto event? when in fact the subject is ?the NCUC.?  

I was thinking a quick cut shot, like 5 seconds, with a visual or narrative saying we deal with people, organize meetings, and are not just the half dozen talking heads on display.  I don't think that would change the subject or confuse anyone.

>  
> Certainly the EC has the authority to approve any additional expenditures. That?s why you were asked about the next steps. But let?s avoid the temptation that some EC members might feel, to assert their authority for the sake of asserting their authority.

Why must you say things like this?   Please don't dismiss adults' views with high school psych interpretations.  You're just wrong.  
>  
> Refusing to allocate any more money at this point would not, in my opinion, be a very wise decision given that we have already spent money to produce it and refusing to finish it basically wastes that investment.

In principle I agree that we've come this far and should finish.  But we also have every right to say if we'd have preferred something different, and we have an obligation to ensure that the final product is at least somewhat more suited to our needs.

Since we can't shoot new video that'd match, one alternative would be to have a couple quick visuals showing  important missing information like current membership and it's geo-diversity, an overview of the constituency building effort and teams people can join, the new web site when ready, current EC and reps on NCSG EC PC, etc.

>  
> Let?s not lose sight of the basic fact that led to the decision to start this project to begin with, namely that we lack basic propaganda/publicity materials for NCUC; that this video will surpass in professionalism and appeal anything produced by any other GNSO constituency; that as a digital video it can be circulated among a number of websites and event audiences; and that the video could have a useful life of 2-3 years.

We're all in agreement that a good video would useful.
>  
> I can?t tell you how many times I?ve heard energetic incoming EC members or other activists saying that we need a brochure or some other kind of introduction to the NCUC for basic ?who are we?? publicity. We?re about to get one, and a good one.

Well, who are some of us are?

My suggestion is to compromise rather than saying it's all great and can't be touched or it's not great and shouldn't be continued.  Let's engage, provide inputs, and pay the man when it's completed.

BD


>  
>  
> From: ec-ncuc-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:ec-ncuc-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of William Drake
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 2:18 PM
> To: EC NCUC
> Cc: Farrell, Maria; Wong, Mary
> Subject: Re: [Ec-ncuc] Video update
>  
> 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> 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 $$$. :-)
> Not alone of course, but as a member of the executive committee.
> 
> But, given the discussion in e-team about funding a virtual server,
> I assume the process would be the same: writing the proposal up and
> passing it via finance team (Maria F) and Bill to the EC for decision.
> 
> As for the proposal, option 2 does sound good, but I would like a bit
> more info on both how the money would actually be spent as well
> as what NCUCs financial situation actually is, and ideally
> have a budget of some kind drafted first so we could consider
> what other uses there might be for the money.
> But that'd be up to the finance team I presume, so why not
> just write the proposal up and let Maria pick it up from there?
> 
> Incidentally, isn't this discussion something that'd
> fit the communications team's remit?
> (Which I just subscribed, you're welcome to join.)
> 
> -- 
> Tapani
> (At Helsinki airport, still five hours from home)
> 
> On Jan 31 19:10, ca at cafonso.ca (ca at cafonso.ca) wrote:
> 
> > Although I am in no position to decide on NCUC $$$, I certainly
> > favor option 2.
> > 
> > frt rgds
> > 
> > --c.a.
> > 
> > Em 31-01-2013 17:06, Brenden Kuerbis escreveu:
> > >Dear EC,
> > >
> > >Given the lack of reply, Im guessing there are no additional
> > >resources
> > >for pursuing either Option 2 or 3 below?  Im particularly keen on
> > >Option 2 as this would include the infographic(s) mentioned.  But if
> > >there are not additional resources, Im exploring with Eric the
> > >possibility of having the infographics done by someone within NCUC or
> > >at my institution. 
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >
> > >Brenden
> > >
> > >On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Brenden Kuerbis
> > ><bkuerbis at internetgovernance.org [12]> wrote:
> > >
> > >>Dear EC,
> > >>
> > >>Touching base on the NCUC promo video.   One idea that weve been
> > >>playing with (and is incorporated into Version 9 in second mail
> > >>below) is to integrate an info-graphic/voice over about NCUCs
> > >>diversity.  Eric also offers some additional post-production
> > >>options to make a more compelling message for your consideration.  
> > >>For now, and as previously discussed, were keeping it simple and
> > >>assuming Option 1.   Please let me know your thoughts.
> > >>
> > >>Thanks,
> > >>
> > >>Brenden
> > >>
> > >>---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > >>From: ERIC PEDICELLI <eric at chopshopmedia.ca [7]>
> > >>Date: Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 6:27 PM
> > >>Subject: NCUC video ROUGH JAN 24
> > >>To: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu [8]>, Brenden N Kuerbis
> > >><bnkuerbi at syr.edu [9]>
> > >>
> > >>Milton and Brenden,
> > >>
> > >>Heres a tighter rough cut with some music. The aim here is to lock
> > >>in the content and get a sense of the mood and flow. Let me know
> > >>what you think. In my opinion, it should run about 2:45, so please
> > > >>>TEDxToronto 2012 Speaker Ronald J. Deibert, Director, The Citizen Lab [3] (not my work)
> > >>>https://vimeo.com/42994449 [4]
> > >>>
> > >>>OPITON 3 : $5,500+ - We brainstorm ideas for some very cool motion
> > >>>graphics. We can also explore some interesting ways to animate the
> > >>>NCUC logo and make it more memorable. Heres an example of some
> > >>>motion graphics work I did for the Cyber Dialogue conference :
> > >>>https://vimeo.com/50192165 [5].  You can also watch the logo
> > >>>animation on the splash page of my website : www.chopshopmedia.ca
> > >>>[6] 
> > >>
> > >>The simple and clean approach of option 1 will serve as a great
> > >>introduction to the NCUC. However, with a more engaging visual
> > >>style, the video is more likely to reach a wider audience. A quick
> > >>succession of images can bring multiple layers of meaning to a
> > >>phrase, which makes a viewer more likely to see their
> > >>interests/concerns reflected in the video. Viewers will be more
> > >>likely to watch till the end, respond emotionally, connect with the
> > >>NCUC and share the video.
> > >>
> > >>Let me know how you would like to proceed. Regardless of which
> > >>option you choose, Im looking forward to putting my heart into the
> > >>video and making it the best it can be.
> > >>
> > >>Thanks,
> > >>Eric   --
> > >>  e r i c  p e d i c e l l i
> > >>CHOPSHOPMEDIA.ca
> > >>
> > >>On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Eric Pedicelli
> > >><eric at chopshopmedia.ca [10]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>Heres version 9 : https://vimeo.com/58469517 [11]
> > >>password : ncyousee
> > >>
> > >>I made the suggested changes and brought some new thinking to the
> > >>dialogue under the info graphic.  Are we happy with the content in
> > >>this version or do you see more changes?
> > >>
> > >>Its been a pleasure getting to this point but we should move
> > >>towards finishing the video if additional funding is not available.
> > >>Ill wait for the verdict before proceeding.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Links:
> > >------
> > >[1] https://vimeo.com/58123636
> > >[2] https://vimeo.com/41105632
> > >[3] TEDxToronto 2012 Speaker Ronald J. Deibert, Director, The Citizen Lab
> > >[4] https://vimeo.com/42994449
> > >[5] https://vimeo.com/50192165
> > >[6] http://www.chopshopmedia.ca
> > >[7] mailto:eric at chopshopmedia.ca
> > >[8] mailto:mueller at syr.edu
> > >[9] mailto:bnkuerbi at syr.edu
> > >[10] mailto:eric at chopshopmedia.ca
> > >[11] https://vimeo.com/58469517
> > >[12] mailto:bkuerbis at internetgovernance.org
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Ec-ncuc mailing list
> 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/20130202/48e8ac45/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the NCUC-EC mailing list