[NCUC-EC] Fwd: Reminder ICANN Document Development and Drafting Pilot Program

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi,

as we discussed in the EC call, we will work on some proposals (
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UeheZGySQ4ZtXZxxBnbIXwlHtoiHZhpmq6u0CxLIK0M/edit?usp=sharing)
for policy support and investigate possible option. after that, we will
share the document with NCUC list for consultation.

Best,

Rafik

2016-04-25 10:45 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:

>
> Hi Milton,
>
>
>
> 2016-04-25 10:25 GMT+09:00 Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>:
>
>> I want to express my strongest opposition to this entire program.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have carefully observed the role of ICANN staff in the drafting of CCWG
>> proposals and the assessment of public comments on those proposals. For the
>> most part, staff did a very professional job, but in the final analysis
>> there was no way to avoid the critical conflict of interest that existed.
>>
>>
> if you check the questionnaire, there are several options and I didn't
> select those about drafting comments, not even initial draft . I am pretty
> aware about our position regarding any 3rd party involvement in making
> policy position
>
>
>>
>> If you are trying to reform ICANN in a way that redistributes power from
>> ICANN board and staff to the community, it is a very bad mistake to allow
>> the administration, drafting and assessment processes to be controlled by
>> ICANN staff. This problem manifested itself in numerous ways. The latest
>> example is the evisceration of the Human Rights Framework of Interpretation
>> provisions (see the CCWG list for details).
>>
>>
>
> we will be involved on hiring that resource policy. for reminder it is
> pilot project,  if we don't like, we can say sorry we don't to use it. it
> is also up to us to decide on which area that resource person would work
> and what he/she should deliver.
>
>
>>
>> Now we are asked to outsource our only important function – policy
>> development – to ICANN staff.
>>
>>
>>
> it is 3rd party and it is not about drafting our own statement and
> comments. many of newcomers are asking for briefings and material to
> catch-up . our overloaded volunteers cannot do that.
>
> Big mistake. There is no doubt in my mind that this will lead to a total
>> loss of control over the policy development process by civil society
>> stakeholders. Just as board, staff and legal had too much influence over
>> the ICANN accountability CCWG, ICANN the corporation will become the
>> controlling factor in the development of “community” policies.
>>
>>
>>
>> ICANN already provides enormous amounts of support to its GNSO council
>> and working groups.
>>
>
>>
>> This needs to be resisted not only by NCUC but blocked for all other
>> constituencies as well. ICANN’s stakeholder groups need to be in control of
>> policy development, not the staff.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> well other constituencies that are even responding to more public comments
> than NCSG are asking for such reports with regard to research efforts.
>
> we need to find a real solution for scaling-up: ICANN in general and GNSO
> in particular initiated several work we have to catch-up. 3 heavy PDP that
> will last for years and our pool of volunteers is not increasing
> exponentially. we end-up mostly with the same folks in the 3 working
> groups, it is not sustainable not suitable.
>
> in same time our membership grow up quite quickly and we are not doing
> enough in term of in-reach and engagement. having discussed with several
> members since I was in NCSG chair,  I got many times feedback that they
> want to be better informed, having easy to read briefings, summary of NCUC
> position etc. for now we don't have such handy thing (last request was
> about having a NCUC slides deck for outreach) and we are doing things in
> ad-hoc manner.
>
> I will be happy if we can find a solution outside ICANN. do we have it? I
> am pragmatic here: it is a pilot project, 100 hours of policy resources
> likely to be a postgraduate student or phd to do some research for us. if
> we are not happy, we can moveon
> On other hand, I thought about NCUC applying for fellowship programs such
> google policy fellowship or mozilla program, but I don't know if we are
> eligible, to get a fellow work for NCUC for 1 year. I also thought about
> working with some organizations to get interns for NCUC. I will be glad to
> hear other proposals
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>> *From:* NCUC-EC [mailto:ncuc-ec-bounces at lists.ncuc.org] *On Behalf Of *Rafik
>> Dammak
>> *Sent:* Sunday, April 24, 2016 7:50 AM
>> *To:* ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org
>> *Subject:* [NCUC-EC] Fwd: Reminder ICANN Document Development and
>> Drafting Pilot Program
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>>
>>
>> I filled the questionnaire on what kind of support NCUC can use for this
>> pilot experiment (questionnaire attached, excel file). if there is no
>> strong objection, I will send it in monday after NCUC EC call.
>>
>>
>>
>> we can use this resource for NCUC and but also to support NCSG PC work.
>> in fact, NCSG can get its own part of support from the program.
>>
>>
>>
>> getting the admin support helped a lot to take some workload from the
>> chair with regard to administrative tasks. in same fashion, this policy
>> resource would help us to get more research work and briefing about policy
>> issues for our members, preparing for public comments.
>>
>>
>>
>> there are a lot of policy discussion going on and we have to work on
>> bringing more volunteers on board and preparing them, in order to expand
>> the pool of volunteers. such support would help for our in-reach and
>> engagement activity.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: *Rafik Dammak* <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> Date: 2016-04-06 15:53 GMT+09:00
>> Subject: Reminder ICANN Document Development and Drafting Pilot Program
>> To: "ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org" <ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org>
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>>
>>
>> we overlooked this and I would like to work on this pilot project. we
>> have nothing to lose and we can experiment the added value to have policy
>> support. I am thinking that we can use such resource to get briefings and
>> research work for the new 3 PDP WG initiated lately.
>>
>> I will send the filled questionnaire by this weekend for review.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: *Rafik Dammak* <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> Date: 2016-02-23 3:38 GMT+09:00
>> Subject: Fwd: ICANN Document Development and Drafting Pilot Program
>> To: ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Please review this. There is a pilot project to provide policy support
>> for GNSO groups. I was interviewed last year about this
>>
>> There is questionnaire to respond to
>>
>> Best.
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: "Daniel O'Neill" <doneill at wbcglobal.com>
>> Date: Feb 19, 2016 6:51 AM
>> Subject: ICANN Document Development and Drafting Pilot Program
>> To: <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> Cc: "Robert Hoggarth" <robert.hoggarth at icann.org>, "David Olive" <
>> david.olive at icann.org>
>>
>> Rafik:
>>
>>
>>
>> I hope this note finds you doing well.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am writing to you today to follow up on and encourage your
>> participation in the Document Development and Drafting pilot program I am
>> working with Rob Hoggarth and Carlos Reyes to stand up.
>>
>>
>>
>> You were so generous with your time last year to assist us in the scoping
>> process to really understand the needs of your constituency and how we
>> could design a pilot program to address these needs and to facilitate
>> greater participation in the ICANN process.
>>
>>
>>
>> David Olive had sent an e-mail in January introducing the idea of
>> Document Development and Drafting Pilot Program, and asking for your
>> feedback on how the pilot can assist the NCSG.
>>
>>
>>
>> As you know from our earlier discussion, I have been asked to develop
>> this pilot program to provide additional assistance to the ICANN
>> communities to increase their bandwidth and ability to engage in a greater
>> number of ICANN comment opportunities.  Based on our prior conversation, we
>> certainly saw the NCSG as one of the communities that we would be in a
>> position to engage with and assist with this pilot program.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have attached an overview of the pilot program for your review as well
>> as a short questionnaire that we would very much like for you to complete —
>> to give us some initial guidance on the priority areas where you see this
>> program being able to assist the IPC.
>>
>>
>>
>> If it would be helpful to you, I would be happy to have a call on the
>> pilot program at any time in the near future to discuss the program; the
>> objective; and structure for assisting communities in their drafting needs.
>>
>>
>>
>> As David's note mentioned, we want to get the program ramped up prior to
>> ICANN55 and are past some of the target dates for feedback.  We are now
>> working a condensed timeframe and would encourage you to complete the
>> questionnaire as soon as possible — we would very much like to include the
>> IPC in this pilot.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please let me know if you have some time to get on the phone next week to
>> discuss.
>>
>>
>>
>> I look forward to hearing back from you and working with you to develop
>> this program into something that will be valuable for your community.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>> *Daniel O'Neill*
>>
>> Principal
>>
>> WBC Global
>>
>> 1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW
>>
>> Suite 1110
>>
>> Washington, D.C. 20036
>>
>> Doneill at wbcglobal.com
>>
>> 202.445.3720 (m)
>>
>> 202.640.2580 (f)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20160426/0f04978a/attachment.html>