[NCUC-EC] CIVICRM Costs/Request

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi,

I think there are separate things.
The concern from Farzaneh as I understand is related to NCSG EC review of
applications. That is the remit of NCSG EC and so only representatives
there should be involved in deliberations. I think when there is a question
or inquiry from an applicant that should be communicated to NCSG EC
directly, at that level the application doesn't concern any constituency as
they can review member if they want after s/he becomes NCSG member and
expressed interest to join  1 or both constituency.  The data related to
the application is also the responsibility of NCSG during the review. After
NCSG approval, application information can be shared with NCUC EC for
approval to NCUC.

This discussion raises a lot of questions about trusting and empowering the
representatives appointed to different committees. They cannot be appointed
and tasked with something and then be bypassed by NCUC EC interventions.
NCUC EC can and should review applications coming to NCUC after the
approval to become NCSG member as indicated in NCUC bylaws. That would be a
different process and a different matter. Can the NCUC representatives
consult with NCUC EC about a particular candidate? that needs more
discussion.

again if there is a question or inquiry by the applicant,  that should be
escalated directly to NCSG EC and Chair and they can and should respond.
But if it is about making the case for an applicant or something of such
nature, this can raise several issues about the integrity of the process.

Best,

Rafik

Le mar. 17 juil. 2018 à 16:23, Tapani Tarvainen <ncuc at tapani.tarvainen.info>
a écrit :

> 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
> > >> >>
> _______________________________________________
> NCUC-EC mailing list
> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20180717/579466a4/attachment.html>