[NCUC-EC] [NPOC Excom] CIVICRM Costs/Request

[farzaneh badii]

Thank you Bruna and well noted.

Renata I am sorry maybe I was not clear when I was chair and you were an EC
member about  this budget. This budget is not new. Existed since Rafik was
ncuc chair. He actually secured it for membership management. I don't think
Tapani decided to use constituencys budget for civicrm but I think this
year it's needed and Tapani agreed with me.

So the budget as Rafik said in an email in 2016 was earmarked for
membership management. We didn't get to use it. Yes of course the remaining
of this budget is for EC to decide what to do with it and how to spend it
on something that is within what it was allocated for. Npoc is using it for
its website I believe.

Bruna, at the discovery phase we will have a meeting with the company and
leaders. I invite one representative from each constituency  to attend. I
will also draft a process for membership approval and put up for comments.
I don't promise resolving all the issues. But i will try my best. I have
always said that rejection reports should be provided. But let's not act as
if your ncsg ec reps don't exist. Has anyone here contacted these
representatives asking about these applicants that don't get  approved?

Let me tell you what the recurring problem with  applicants are: they don't
respond to our inquiries. We have one case where the person has even asked
the referee what happened to her application in a meeting but she had not
responded to the inquiry. We contacted her again and ccd the reference.
There was still no response. We work with emails. Our mailing list is our
main tool. If the applicant doesn't respond regularly to the email provided
then we can't do anything about it. Another assumption is that it goes to
their spam. We have put a notification on membership application forms
recently that they might receive an email from us and they should be on the
look out. We cant work with other social media, whatsapping them etc. We
can cc their references. Sometimes the applicants answer gets lost or is
snowed down. Or we are people. We forget. In that case we need to make the
system as automatic as possible so that it makes less human errors. At the
moment the system is making more errors than a toddler  toddling.

let's proceed with this. Will send the contracts and invoices To you  (
both ncuc and npoc leaders) ( will see if the contract can be open to share
on mailing  list)  and we will start with a strong system that works and
helps us ( and mainly me) be more accountable. I don't want this issue to
linger on for the next chair to inherit this faulty system from me. I only
pass on glory (just to make you smirk)


Thanks for the support and help.





On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:27 PM Bruna Martins dos Santos <
bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> From a look at the company's website I believe that they are very much
> fine tuned with NCSG/NCUC's values and would be able to deliver the system
> we have been aiming for, maybe even with the ability to produce periodic
> reports regarding member approval and keeping our applications/evaluations
> better documented.
>
> I do agree with Renata that the leadership from both constituencies could
> profit more from proper feedback regarding rejected candidates - like
> reasoning, numbers, regions, occupations and any other related data
> (randomly thinking) - as it could eventually help us redirect the
> interested individual towards reapplying.  But I also understand that the
> level of access and the kind of information that chairs could have access
> to is something that should be reflected upon as well as the timing (to
> avoid interferences in the future) - this is a good subject of conversation
> between all our Executive committees (NCSG, NCUC and NPOC) past the
> implementations.
>
> As it appears, improvements in the system could help us better assess
> member's rejection cases and (a) find ways to better advise prospective
> members/interested individuals, (b) have a better conversation with our
> NCSG EC representatives and (c) think of avenues forward to our outreaching
> models.  So I tend to agree with Elsa and do not personally oppose the
> budget allocation.
>
>
> Best,
> B.
> (and apologies if I sound repetitive aha)
>
>
> 2018-07-18 23:20 GMT-03:00 Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>:
>
>> Hi Farzaneh and all
>>
>> Thanks for the responses.
>>
>> I`ll just highlight, yet again, that NCUC EC has never bypassed or
>> challenged any NCSG EC decision.
>>
>> What happens is that NCUC EC is more involved with outreach gets to
>> listen from ICANN community members about if they have applied or not,
>> rejected or not, wonder about the time for applicaitons, some re-apply
>> (just in our last members calll we had a doubt from someone who had a
>> friend in IPC wanting to leave for NCUC)
>>
>> NCUC Chair and EC don't have the answer for these outlier candidates,
>> these specific situations
>> Neither we want to
>> NCSG EC discussion for approval is important
>>
>> But we have information, we get questions and we need information from
>> the database
>>
>> And yes, I also think that if it is a budget coming from the
>> Constituency, the constituency should have the right to observe how
>> that is progressing
>>
>> To be honest, this is not a consultation to NCUC EC but a search for
>> legitimization of the choice made, since NCSG will move with the
>> company they chose anyway
>>
>> Another question I have is since half of our (newfound) budget is
>> gone, do we at least get access to the other half?
>>
>> Perhaps with it we can do an open bid and do a parallel database to
>> record these cases of "members in limbo"
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Renata
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Elsa S <elsa.saade at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hey all,
>> >
>> > Thank you all for the elaborate discussion on this thread. I can see how
>> > important and urgently needed this development is, which is why i would
>> > personally not be opposed to approving the budget allocation.
>> >
>> > It would be worthwhile though, to put down a disclaimer that we would
>> like
>> > to aim for a better system that eventually would have all aspects we
>> want,
>> > including being open source for instance. Hopefully this would happen
>> once
>> > the system is workable and once we possibly can reprioritize without as
>> much
>> > urgency. I do understand some doubts on the thread, however given the
>> > circumstances, it would be imperative for us to get this going as soon
>> as
>> > possible given the importance of keeping existing data sane and keeping
>> NCSG
>> > EC’s work going smoother for the sake of our constituencies, our
>> members and
>> > obviously our growth.
>> >
>> > My teo cents here.
>> >
>> > Elsa
>> > —
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 5:09 PM farzaneh badii <
>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi everyone
>> >>
>> >> NPOC approved the allocation of one-off 4000.00 USD to go for
>> improvement
>> >> to CiviCRM.
>> >>
>> >> I thank NPOC EC for this speedy action.
>> >>
>> >> I was wondering if NCUC EC members could also allocate a budget equal
>> to
>> >> that of NPOC to service CIVICRM, 4000.00 USD?
>> >>
>> >> Also I have been in touch with ICANN, if we want to contract like
>> previous
>> >> years, we need the invoices to be paid from a bank account and be
>> reimbursed
>> >> by ICANN. I talked to ICANN today and it is the same this round as
>> well.
>> >> Previous years we used NCUC bank account to pay the costs and was
>> >> reimbursed. If NCUC EC could also approve that the treasurer pays the
>> >> invoices from NCUC bank account and be reimbursed, that would be
>> great. I
>> >> have asked ICANN staff for confirmation, they confirmed and the
>> treasurer
>> >> can also approach them anytime to ensure the reimbursement will happen.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks a lot, we need speedy action on this and I appreciate if you
>> could
>> >> weigh in soon.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Best
>> >> Farzaneh
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 7:49 AM Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I agree with Michael on this - we have a fair amount of money ready
>> to be
>> >>> allocated for this database and the service that goes with it. I'd be
>> ready
>> >>> to pay a little extra for having an open bid for these services. We
>> should
>> >>> really set an example and practice what we preach.
>> >>>
>> >>> I'd also be ready to give the constituency chairs read-only access to
>> the
>> >>> members database as well as the NCSG EC mailing list.
>> >>>
>> >>> -Raoul
>> >>>
>> >>> On 17 July 2018 at 09:13, 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
>> >>>> >> >>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ExCom mailing list
>> >>>> ExCom at npoc.org
>> >>>> http://npoc.org/mailman/listinfo/excom_npoc.org
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> NCUC-EC mailing list
>> >> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
>> >> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>> >
>> > --
>> > --
>> >
>> > Elsa Saade
>> > Consultant
>> > Gulf Centre for Human Rights
>> > Twitter: @Elsa_Saade
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > NCUC-EC mailing list
>> > NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
>> > https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCUC-EC mailing list
>> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Bruna Martins dos Santos *
>
> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
> @boomartins
>
-- 
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20180718/724c9160/attachment.html>