[Ec-ncuc] Video update

[William Drake]

Hi

Whoa Nellie, let's dial it back a little please.

There are some communications dynamics surfacing in this thread that will need to get sorted out as we go forward or else the whole experience will become a turn off and cooperation on forward movement will deteriorate.  Nasty language, constructing false narratives, and attributing ill will has never made any group grow and thrive in my experience; if someone has counter-examples I'd be interested to hear them.  So please let's disentangle the video from any larger differences over working methods etc. and focus on the issue at hand.

If I had $5,000 to spend on outreach, I'm not sure this would have been my choice.  And once the decision to do it was made, I wish there'd some collective planning of the content, including in light of the pending change in NCUC, rather than just pulling a few people aside during the Toronto conference to say what came to mind.  However, this does NOT mean that I question the good will and intentions of the folks who decided to do it, or that a video can be a helpful outreach tool (particularly in the context of a larger and planned initiative).  Given the options, I'd rather double down and finish it than write it off as sunk costs. 

That said, I don't accept the notion that if people raise concerns about the particular content/implementation this amounts to "carping" and we should all just shut the hell up, authorize funding, and accept whatever Eric decides to deliver.  The CT and the  EC have a right to participate in finalization of the project and an obligation to ensure it's money well spent.

Can we please have reasoned dialogue on possible tweaks that would move the product closer to the mark?  Leaving aside for the moment precisely what any suggestion might mean operationally (i.e. a three second shot of something vs a six second graphic/visual with narrative, etc), what elements if any would be good to blend in if we could find a way?  Just off the top of my head, I could see arguments for 

1.  Briefly listing kinds of concrete engagements NCUC has engaged in, including clarification that we help put six people on Council which does xyz, we file position statements, we organize events, we interact and partner with other groups in the ICANNsphere etc, and some indication that these have mattered

2. Acknowledging the size and geodiversity of the membership and consequent evolving interests etc.

3. Indicating that long standing NCUC issues like FoE, privacy and IPR are now being supplemented by interest in newer issues like securitization and GAC, outreach and strategic engagement in the global IG space, enhancing MS in light of AoC and new gTLDs, etc

4. Stressing the importance of the historical moment with new TLDs internally and geopolitics externally (neither will go away so would not get dated) as a rationale for expanding CS engagement now

5. At least a nod to the constituency building initiative, a graphic showing the teams and saying people are welcome to join

6. Quickie shots of the new website when ready, maybe the GNSO page with current EC head shots, etc.

In general, I would think things like this could be blended in rather easily via graphics with narrative?like 25% of 3 minutes being new visual/narrative material that hits important points to supplement and frame the talking heads??

Coffee still kicking in, probably there's other points to make, but if we could just focus on what IN PRINCIPLE would make more people more satisfied and then decide in practice what is and isn't feasible, that'd be helpful.

Thanks,

BD






On Feb 3, 2013, at 1:47 AM, Edward Morris <edward.morris at ALUMNI.USC.EDU> wrote:

> -.  I understand that since most members of this EC group were not involved in the original decision to make the video it is less invested in or interested in the follow through, but if one trusts one's colleagues and has a spirit of cooperation and collegiality, as the last EC group did, it should not be that difficult to understand the need for following up and concluding this project. There was, in fact, enthusiastic support for a promotional video for NCUC and it's kind of sad to see the carping and mistrust that has replaced it in this group.
> 
> 
> More attacks on our volunteers. Carping and mistrust?
> 
> I prefer to think of it as responsible, transparent financial leadership for a change.
> 
> Milton, are you capable of making an argument without insulting people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We spent $2,315 on the shooting. Not a big deal.
> 
> 
> For a constituency with an outdated website, no written promotional materials and no attempt at branding it is a huge waste.
> 
> The material can still be used in a production that truly reflects the diversity of our Constituency and integrates with our volunteer led promotional revamp.
> 
>  
> Tapani: you are asking perfectly legitimate questions given the way this has fallen into your lap. But "5% of our accumulated funds" is not at all how I would characterize the expenditure. NCUC funds are not a fixed amount that every expenditure subtracts from until we are at zero. We get recurring annual contributions from PIR and special contributions from other sources. So the fund level goes down when we spend, but goes back up when we get contributions. In general, this project is an outgrowth of the Toronto event and we raised money specifically to do it. There are no other outstanding demands on our budget at this time.
> 
> 
> So apparently the outreaches planned for Beijing and Durban are free?
> 
> Which budget are we talking about? The one that does not exist?
> 
>  
> 
> Your more general questions about financial reporting will be responded to in another message. Can I conclude that we are agreed on Option 1?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> I want input from the e-platform, communications, inreach and outreach committees to see if and how the current production meets or does not met their needs. I'd also like to hear from the Finance committee to see how this and other planned expenditures affect our reserves.
> 
> Carping and mistrust? If that is what you call EC members who are concerned about being  better informed about NPOC's transparent online finances than our own then label it what you must.
> 
> 
>  
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130203/1e7a3209/attachment.html>