Initial Draft Proposal regarding standard Project Funding to Constituencies/SGs

[Adam Peake]

>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).


Rafik, simply not correct.  Read the Fellowship 
page <http://www.icann.org/en/fellowships/>, in 
particular take a look at the Dakar Fellows. It's 
a good programme, do NCSG members meet with the 
Fellows?

Adam



>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>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. I¹d prefer to see more focus in the 
>>proposed categories of support on capacity 
>>building and network development (whether 
>>through fellowships or other). Like Amr, I¹d 
>>also be interested in how the 25k figure was 
>>derived.
>>Joy
>>
>>
>>From: NCSG-Discuss 
>>[<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On 
>>Behalf Of Robin Gross
>>Sent: Wednesday, 16 November 2011 3:19 a.m.
>>To: <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>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 
>><<mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>marilynscade at hotmail.com>
>>Date: November 13, 2011 6:36:35 PM PST
>>To: Steve Metalitz 
>><<mailto:met at msk.com>met at msk.com>, Chris at 
>>Andalucia 
>><<mailto:chris at andalucia.com>chris at andalucia.com>, 
>>Tony Holmes 
>><<mailto:tony_1aspen at btinternet.com>tony_1aspen at btinternet.com>, 
>>Matt Serlin 
>><<mailto:matt.serlin at markmonitor.com>matt.serlin at markmonitor.com>, 
>>Mason Cole 
>><<mailto:mcole at nameking.com>mcole at nameking.com>, 
>>David Maher 
>><<mailto:dmaher at pir.org>dmaher at pir.org>, 
>>Konstantine Komaitis 
>><<mailto:k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk>k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk>, 
>>Amber Sterling 
>><<mailto:asterling at aamc.org>asterling at aamc.org>
>>Cc: Robin Gross 
>><<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>robin at ipjustice.org>, 
>>"bc-secretariat @icann" 
>><<mailto:bc-secretariat at icann.org>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