Initial Draft Proposal regarding standard Project Funding to Constituencies/SGs

[Joy Liddicoat]

Hi all - I support this idea in principle, particularly to support
sustainable engagement or outreach in developing countries. I would rather
see domain name fee registration funds devolved back to these kinds of
engagement activities with NCSG input into their application for specific
sector-supporting activities. In the draft proposal itself, given the
rationale for the proposal in the first couple of pages, I was not expecting
to see a focus on secretariat and administrative related activities. I'd
prefer to see more focus in the proposed categories of support on capacity
building and network development (whether through fellowships or other).
Like Amr, I'd also be interested in how the 25k figure was derived.

Joy





From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Robin
Gross
Sent: Wednesday, 16 November 2011 3:19 a.m.
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Fwd: Initial Draft Proposal regarding standard Project Funding to
Constituencies/SGs



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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20111116/47d13a39/attachment-0001.html>