[NCUC-EC] CIVICRM Costs/Request

[Tapani Tarvainen]

Hi all,

First a quick observation, I believe there's no rule against NCUC
Chair or some EC members also being NCUC representatives in NCSG EC.
NPOC has been doing just that ... pretty much since forever as far as
I can recall. I'll refrain from arguing further for or against that,
just noting that it's an option that under some circumstances might be
worth considering.

Regarding database access: It's up to constituencies to decide how
they approve their own members. They don't have to delegate that to
their representatives in NCSG EC: these only approve membership in
NCSG, unless constituences decide to delegate constituency membership
approval to them as well.

Of course that does not necessarily mean constituency Chairs or ECs
should have access to the database, information needed to decide on
constituency membership could be provided by other means as well.

On the other hand technically it would be possible to set things up so
that constituency Chairs and ECs only see members after they've been
approved by NCSG EC, and only those who've applied to membership of
their constituency. This could be useful also otherwise so that
constituency Chairs/ECs can see their own members' data. (It was one
of the things I'd envisioned for the member database but failed to
realize.)

Whether such arrangements are necessary of course depends on the
constituencies. If they're happy to let their representatives in NCSG
EC decide constituency membership as well, no such arrangements would
be needed. On the other hand if nobody objects to constituencies'
Chairs or ECs having access to the database it could also simplify
things.

Another consideration is that if it's decided constituency Chairs/ECs
mustn't have access to the database, should their representatives in
NCSG EC also be restricted in what they can tell their own Chairs/ECs
about applicants, in particular if they have doubts about some and
want a broader opinion?

As to formally challenging NCSG EC decisions, NCSG Charter provides
for that (you need to go to the membership), it is indeed distinct
from database access.

Hope this helps,

Tapani

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 10:13:35AM +0400, Michael Karanicolas (mkaranicolas at gmail.com) wrote:
> 
> "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
> >> >>