Initial Draft Proposal regarding standard Project Funding to Constituencies/SGs

[rafik dammak]

Adam,

I applied myself more than two years ago to the fellowship program  
many times and got it finally when it is was not needed anymore, I  
didn' say that is not good program, but implicitly something to be  
improved. well Dakar selection looks good , maybe changes happen last  
times, but I still think that must be improved.
yes NCSG members meet with the fellows, I think that Mary made  
presentation last time in Dakar.

Best,

Rafik




>
> 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