Fwd: Initial Draft Proposal regarding standard Project Funding to Constituencies/SGs

[Alain Berranger]

I support this modest proposal which will make the Constituencies/SGs more
sustainable. Outreach to the developing world is important and such funding
could accelerate that process. Each constituency/SG would decide how best
to use the funds within the standard support budget lines/categories and
according to their business plan. Since it would be proposal-based, the
allocation of funds would be known to all. It would complement and dovetail
with the fellowship program. It will help each constituency and/or SG make
their web presence and fundraising efforts a little more robust.

Alain

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> There is a draft proposal from the CSG regarding providing standard
> project funding to the GNSO constituencies and stakeholder groups (see
> attached).  I'd be very curious to hear thoughts of the membership as
> whether we should support this proposal and especially if you have any
> suggestions for amending the proposal.
>
> Thanks!
> Robin
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
> *Date: *November 13, 2011 6:36:35 PM PST
> *To: *Steve Metalitz <met at msk.com>, Chris at Andalucia <
> chris at andalucia.com>, Tony Holmes <tony_1aspen at btinternet.com>, Matt
> Serlin <matt.serlin at markmonitor.com>, Mason Cole <mcole at nameking.com>,
> David Maher <dmaher at pir.org>, Konstantine Komaitis <
> k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk>, Amber Sterling <asterling at aamc.org>
> *Cc: *Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>, "bc-secretariat @icann" <
> bc-secretariat at icann.org>
> *Subject: **Initial Draft Proposal regarding standard Project Funding to
> Constituencies/SGs*
>
>
> I mentioned to some of you that the BC submitted a proposal last year that
> was not funded, but that we thought it useful to share with you, and seek
> your support for a version of a standard support project that can be self
> administered at the Constituency level [in the case of the Ry and RR, that
> would be SG level].  We proposed $20,000 in 2012, and you will see that we
> have increased it to $25,000 in 2013.
>
> We have specific activities in mind, and listed those. They may not be
> inclusive of what your entity would want to seek funding for.  In our case,
> we primarily want to do recruitment, and we would be able to support our
> part time secretariat/travel, and our ongoing interest in developing some
> materials.
>
> You may have other items that you would like to see in the list, and we
> did not mean to make it exclusive.
>
> We would welcome your views, including if you do not want to join in any
> further discussion.  Each constituency would still have to submit their own
> budget request and each will be approved individually, without any
> dependencies. What we are proposing is a jointly developed endorsement of
> such an approach. This certainly isn't required by the budget process,
> however.
>
> As you all know, when the GNSO improvements plan was approved by the
> Board, certain unfunded mandates including maintaining a website, archiving
> records, and certain other activities were mandated for constituencies/SGs
> but without any consideration of how we developed resources.  I gathered
> that the staff and Board may have had some irrational enthusiam that the
> ToolKit would magically solve all such needs.  It is useful, but not
> encompassing. And, ICANN's timeline for completing it has been extremely
> slow.   The GNSO website improvements themselves are still pending, which
> has made us reluctant to move our website itself to ICANN. However, this
> proposal is about different services than the ToolKit provides, as you will
> see.
>
> I hope you find this useful to consider, and welcome any suggestions, or
> thoughts.
>
> As noted, I have shared the draft with the CFO, but only as a concept
> paper. I have not indicated whether others will join in endorsing or
> improving it, so don't feel that you are at this point committed to
> supporting the concept. You are not, but we would welcome collaborating, if
> that makes sense to you.
>
> If any of you would like to have a phone discussion, we can arrange that
> as well.
> I copied Benedetta Rossi, the BC's Secretariat, who would arrange any such
> call.
>
> Regards
>
> Marilyn Cade
> Chris Chaplow
>
>
>
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>
>
>
>
>


--
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
Member, Board of Directors, CECI,
http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca
NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
interim Vice Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
Skype: alain.berranger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20111119/ad05be62/attachment-0001.html>