Initial Draft Proposal regarding standard Project Funding to Constituencies/SGs

[rafik dammak]

hello,

there is fellowship program already, the problem as mentioned by Amr  
is the selection, it is disguised way to fund some GAC rep and people  
from ccTLD to attend the meeting with the rest of few seats for  
regulators, academic etc but nothing for civil society per se, it will  
be important to push for fair selection there ( and ask to add more  
member in the selection committee which is currently small).

there were several recommendations from the OSC CSG WT (sorry for the  
acronym)  where Debbie and me participated, regarding toolkit AN  
outreach effort. the toolkit is overdue and should help for  
administrative, secretariat stuff. Outreach effort is still at the  
beginning stage and we have motion at gnso council about the outreach  
taskforce. for those we need to push for implementing the  
recommendations. they are already over-over due.
I think the proposal is mostly about travel funding and the number  
looked familiar (found here http://www.icann.org/en/financials/so-ac-sg-requests-summary-fy12-09aug11-en.pdf 
  , I couldn't unfortunately find the document with the all requests,  
it is quite instructing...)  for me as some icann structures asked the  
same amount for different projects.

@Bill and yes it is peanuts if you compare to what other request , but  
addition all these peanuts and it will be somehow caviar :D

Best,

Rafik

On Nov 16, 2011, at 6:50 AM, Joy Liddicoat wrote:

> 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/fec7ebb9/attachment-0001.html>