[NCUC-EC] CIVICRM Costs/Request

[Michael Karanicolas]

"You have access through your NCSG EC reps."

I would be interested in hearing more opinions regarding whether
Constituency Chairs should have access to the database. I don't feel
strongly one way or the other, but I do see a distinction between
having access and having the ability to formally challenge the NCSG on
its decision-making. I don't think anybody is suggesting the latter,
but I think it's worth considering whether using Constituency money to
support the database should be accompanied by the Chairs getting
observer status.

Regarding open contracting - obviously my views on this are well known
:) But - it can be problematic to adopt something like this midway
through a process. If we've received estimates under the understanding
that they will be kept confidential, it's tough to go back on that -
an understanding which is also reflected in the WS2 recommendations.
However, I would support any moves to formally adopt open contracting
for future processes going forward, and would be happy to help draft a
policy along those lines.

Best,

Michael



On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 8:03 PM, farzaneh badii
<farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you Renata.
>
> I understand your concerns and I would like to give you a bit of a
> background. Answers in line
> Farzaneh
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 11:24 AM Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Michael and all
>>
>> This is news to me now as well so I will ask more information from ICANN
>> staff.
>>
>> NCUC EC had its call today and I will repeat my thoughts on this issue.
>>
>> This feels too much like a "shotgun wedding".
>>
>> NCSG Chair wants our response by the end of the week.
>>
>> However, I think we should discuss with our members if want to commit
>> half of our (newfound) budget on a database we have no access to and
>> know the issues of (I have accompanied a few meetings at NCSG Chair's
>> invite but I think I saw only the tip of the iceberg).
>
>
> You have access through your NCSG EC reps.
>
>>
>>
>> There is no guarantee that building a relationship with this company
>> will end the issues being faced now on membership approval front.
>
>
> Renata, I have been working with a faulty system since January. But Maryam
> and I persisted with the developer to make the data base work and make the
> commenting process work. So it was functioning until a couple of weeks ago
> when it started not saving again and our contract with that developer which
> was done during Tapani has now ended. CIVICRM needs to be maintained on
> monthly basis  otherwise we will lose data.
>
> Approval front, I still say, transparency, sure, rejection reasons can be
> sent to you without the sensitive data of the rejected by your NCSG EC
> representative (as Joan suggested too) .  But challenging the NCSG chair and
> NCSG EC as to why we made inquiries to some applicants will not be accepted.
> It is a governance matter which I will not compromise.   Timeline adherence,
> delay in processing, sometimes happens. I try to prevent it but sometimes
> for various reasons happen. I will try to avoid it and have a speedier
> process. But consider that we also work with a committee of 5  and all of
> them have to comment on the applications.We also cannot accept members who
> are not responding to our inquiries because chairs of constituencies have
> been in touch with them. I have made other suggestions in my other emails
> how to tackle these issues. On my part, I will make sure that issuing
> reports would be easy by CIVICRM design on applicants status so that NCUC
> reps on NCSG EC  can update you if needed without their sensitive
> information being revealed.
>
>
>>
>> Our choices in tech should align with our values, we have no
>> references of practices of the company regarding ideas of diversity
>> hiring practices, data protection etc.
>
>
> I recommend you visit their website.
>>
>>
>> At a minimum we should send out an inquiry to our members who used
>> CivicRM and has providers they can trust.
>>
>> Maybe even question altogether whether CivicRM is a good choice and if
>> it is time to move to another system.
>
>
> I have looked into other options. everyone has a problem with something, we
> should just fix the design of this and continue.
>>
>>
>> I`d also wish we adopt Open Contracting practices.
>>
>> Anyhow, this should be a collective EC decisiion but I hope at least
>> we can have more info about accompanying this process from NCSG.
>
>
> I have sent the quotations - the processes and at the discovery phase I will
> consult with you and NPOC about the features.
>>
>>
>> I will remind you all that I've asked observer status to Constituency
>> Chairs to the database and request was denied.
>
>
> Yes. I will not permit this for the reasons I articulated. The chair of
> constituencies should not be able to challenge EC as to why inquiries being
> made. I would have been neutral if this had not happened but since it did, I
> am worried that it will happen again.
>
> I am willing to help in any other way to make the process more transparent.
>>
>>
>> So I would like to hear more from NCSG how the SG plans to keep
>> Constituencies informed of how half of their budget is being spent and
>> the results achieved.
>
>
> I will send reports. About the process and progress made. also we will be
> coming with an applicants approval process which will make life easier for
> NCSG EC to comment and to have reports sent to the Constituencies  EC as
> necessary.
>
>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Renata
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Michael Karanicolas
>> <mkaranicolas at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Thanks for your email. Sounds like an important issue to address. You
>> > mention that "ICANN has set aside an annual budget for NPOC/NCUC/NCSG
>> > for membership management system. It went unused by NCUC last year."
>> >
>> > What is the amount of this budget? Presumably we lost last year's,
>> > having not spent it?
>> >
>> > Renata or Farzi, can you confirm?
>> >
>> > Best,
>> >
>> > Michael
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 4:52 PM, farzaneh badii
>> > <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Joan and Renata, NCUC and NPOC EC,
>> >>
>> >> For the betterment of NCSG, NCUC and NPOC's membership management
>> >> system and
>> >> elections, we need 4000 USD from each constituency from their ICANN
>> >> budget
>> >> on membership management to enhance CIVICRM  and troubleshoot CIVICRM
>> >> problems. ICANN has set aside an annual budget for NPOC/NCUC/NCSG for
>> >> membership management system. It went unused by NCUC last year.
>> >>
>> >> I would be grateful if we could take a  swift action on this preferably
>> >> no
>> >> later than this week otherwise we will be facing more problems with the
>> >> system. At the moment the system has many glitches and has no support.
>> >> We
>> >> don't want to lose data.
>> >>
>> >> Please kindly discuss and get back to me as soon as possible. I have
>> >> sent
>> >> the cost estimate off list to the chairs and NCSG EC, since the company
>> >> did
>> >> not want it to be public. I can go through what is needed with you if
>> >> would
>> >> like and if needed have a meeting with you this week. We can also
>> >> invite
>> >> Tapani since he was involved with the system last year and understands
>> >> the
>> >> technical needs better than me.
>> >>
>> >> P.S. I first made the cost estimates and the expenses into phases but
>> >> at
>> >> this stage and considering the status of budget I think it is better
>> >> for us
>> >> to just set aside some budget for making the system better.
>> >>
>> >> I will send  both constituencies all the receipts and the expenses made
>> >> and
>> >> submit the improvements over the course of coming months.
>> >>
>> >> Best regards,
>> >>
>> >> Farzaneh
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> NCUC-EC mailing list
>> >> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
>> >> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>> >>