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

Thu Jul 19 10:52:37 CEST 2018

Hi all,

Thanks for drawing attention to this, Farzaneh.

I support the allocation of the budget for the CIVICRM software. I know
that we have different priorities/challenges running alongside, but given
the operational challenges, I would also be in favour of migrating to
another system in this next year.

All the best,

Louise Marie Hurel

Cybersecurity Project Coordinator | Igarapé Institute

London School of Economics (LSE) Media and Communications (Data and Society)
Skype: louise.dias
+44 (0) 7468 906327
*l.h.dias at lse.ac.uk <l.h.dias at lse.ac.uk> *
louise.marie.hsd at gmail.com

On 19 July 2018 at 00:20, 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20180719/e6fce79c/attachment.html>