[Ec-ncuc] Video update

Sun Feb 3 19:30:09 CET 2013

Edward
Let's try to dial it down a bit.

About 80% of the videos on topics like this involve head shots. It's because they are cheap and effective. If you want to fund a documentary with animation, live action scenes and info-graphics, add a couple of zeros and 4 more months to the budget. And someone will always be less than satisfied with the results.

Your comments about diversity are inaccurate, unless Carlos has changed his citizenship and Mary is no longer Singaporean. But we knew at the time that filming it in Toronto would limit who would be in it. That's the kind of trade off you have to make. Anyway those featured in the video are more strongly associated with NCUC and have wider links in the ICANN community than new EC members who have been involved for only a few months. Stick around for a few years, get some real accomplishments for the constituency under your belt and you'll be in the next one.

Folks, this is a 3-minute video. It's professionally produced and it's been made on a tiny budget. My recommendation: Let's get the job done and move on. Please vote to approve the final expenditure. Do not try to re-edit the thing.

But if you really think it is constructive to propose cutting off the small amount of funds required to finish this project, please make that motion openly and explicitly and see if you can get other NCUC members to support that. Keep in mind that you are accountable to the membership for your decisions.

--MM

From: Edward Morris [mailto:egmorris100 at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 3:28 AM
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: William Drake; EC NCUC
Subject: Re: [Ec-ncuc] Video update

Hello Milton,
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:tapani.tarvainen at effi.org>>
Date: 01/02/2013 06:11 (GMT-03:00)
To: ca at cafonso.ca<mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>
Cc: Brenden Kuerbis <bkuerbis at internetgovernance.org<mailto:bkuerbis at internetgovernance.org>>,William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>,Edward Morris <edward.morris at alumni.usc.edu<mailto:edward.morris at alumni.usc.edu>>,Wilson Abigaba <wilson at isoc.ug<mailto:wilson at isoc.ug>>,Norbert Klein <nhklein at gmx.net<mailto: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<mailto:ca at cafonso.ca> (ca at cafonso.ca<mailto: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]<mailto:bkuerbis at internetgovernance.org%20[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]<mailto:eric at chopshopmedia.ca%20[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]<mailto:mueller at syr.edu%20[8]>>, Brenden N Kuerbis
> >><bnkuerbi at syr.edu [9]<mailto:bnkuerbi at syr.edu%20[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<http://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]<mailto:eric at chopshopmedia.ca%20[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<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<mailto:Ec-ncuc at ipjustice.org>
http://mailman.ctyme.com/listinfo/ec-ncuc

_______________________________________________
Ec-ncuc mailing list
Ec-ncuc at ipjustice.org<mailto: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/20130203/741759c5/attachment-0001.html>