[Ec-ncuc] Video update

Sun Feb 3 09:33:15 CET 2013

Hello Milton,

On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 12:30 PM, 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.
> 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.?
>

You accuse others of micromanaging and then tell us the proper way to
micromanage according to your views. A crowd shot properly selected no more
limits the perception of a video to Toronto, as you suggest, than a NFL
productions highlight video of a certain player limits the message to the
specific game in which performance traits placed in a video are taken
from.Such an assertion is ridiculous.

As for the quality of the production I'm far from impressed. Head shots as
a focus? Really? In the 2010's? How quaint.

I'm concerned that the individuals selected to be featured do not represent
the current NCUC. Yes, it is a shame that none of our current Chairs or EC
members appear in the video. Of greater concern is the lack of diversity of
those who have been selected to appear.

Every person, but one,  in the video that has been shown to me  is either
an American citizen or works in the United States of America. This does not
reflect the reality of our community nor is the message we want to send to
others.

>
>
> 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.
>

It didn't take long for you to attack the motives of those suggesting an
opinion other than your own. It's certainly a shame you don't feel
confident enough in your arguments to let them stand on their own without
resorting to attacks like this.

I'd suggest, Milton, that you need to avoid the temptation to attack others
personally when they feel a video in which you seemingly play a more
prominent role than anyone else should not be financed in a way that you,
the man with the check book, feels it should be.

Argue your perspectives on policy, not on motives of our volunteers.

>
>
> 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.
>

As the individual who stands closer to you on the question of acceptance of
ICANN financing than anyone else on the EC,  I'm disappointed that you feel
throwing bad money after bad money is a wise approach in this case.

Is there a contract I'm unaware of that means we must proceed at this
moment with the production? I have seen no one propose scuttling that which
has been done to date and burning the digital images. I see proposals to
temporarily halt production until our other member driven marketing efforts
are underway so the film can be incorporated seamlessly into the overall
effort. I've even suggested that at some point we may want to spend more
money on this production, not less.

Financing is also an issue. I have a fiduciary responsibility to the
members of this organization to properly manage its monies. All EC members
do. Our Charter requires the EC to establish a budget. This has not yet
been done. I hear rumors of amounts available that, as Tapani has stated,
would mean over 10% of our overall assets would be dedicated to finishing
this project.You write resources have already been committed to the
project. How much? When ? On whose authority? Questions asked but not
answered.

The current EC inherited a Constituency that was largely a shell. We are
building and revitalizing everything. As coordinator of both Outreach and
Inreach I can say that an All American, save one,  video,  is not an
approach that is useful to me. As a member of the EC I can not and will not
support any expenditure in excess of $500 until our financial details
become transparent and are made known to myself, all NCUC members and the
general public. Transparency is a way of life, not a word to be used only
to attack other Constituencies.

>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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.
>

Your argument is almost laughable. We have a horrid website, no written
material, no letterhead and so we need to start with a costly professional
motion picture. One that in part  features you.

It may have escaped your notice but the current EC, under the capable
leadership of Bill Drake, has set up a number of committees designed to
address the inadequacies of the structure of the NCUC. Thanks for
volunteering to serve on the Finance Committee under the capable leadership
of Maria Farrell.

It's a shame you haven't had the time  to join those of us spending
countless hours modernizing this Constituency in the e-platform,
communications, outreach and inreach committees. I'm sure if you had the
time you would have. Over the years few, if any, have given more to this
effort than you. I will always be indebted to you for all you have done for
myself and this entire community.

This is not a question of producing professional quality promotional
material, as you assert, rather it is a question of professionally
producing a quality promotional campaign. This video, as so much before
done by this Constituency, is done on an ad hoc basis with no linkage to
other efforts. We are changing this approach. There will be linkage from
the web page to the written materials to, yes, video productions. There may
now also be this outdated largely All American video to show the world how
diverse we really are.

>
>
>
>
> *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 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbS1rVVO6aM> [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 <http://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 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbS1rVVO6aM>
> > >[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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ec-ncuc mailing list
> Ec-ncuc at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ctyme.com/listinfo/ec-ncuc

Click here to Reply, Reply to all, or Forward
1% full
Using 0.2 GB of your 10.1 GB
?2013 Google - Terms & Privacy <http://mail.google.com/mail/help/terms.html>
Last account activity: 2 hours ago
Details

People (3)
Milton L Mueller

Show details
Go Solar For $0 Down. <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?shva=1#ad/59301>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ec-ncuc/attachments/20130203/664df1a6/attachment-0001.html>