Initial Draft Proposal regarding standard Project Funding to Constituencies/SGs

[William Drake]

Hi

On Nov 15, 2011, at 10:50 PM, 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.

Were we to decide to have the conversation with CSG, I would certainly propose spinning the concept hard toward SG outreach in developing countries.  Deepening that engagement would be useful in all kinds of ways—on the ground empowerment, internal organizational culture, geopolitical, etc---that clearly are not fully appreciated by various powers that be.  As to whether there'd be any role for administrative costs, this depends on how the tool kit ends up being implemented; it'd be good to get more clarity on where that's going.

On Nov 16, 2011, at 6:45 AM, rafik dammak wrote:

> 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.

As Stéphane has noted on the Council list, 

On Nov 14, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

> I am of the opinion that despite the fact that its sponsors are no longer on the Council, the motion itself is valid and therefore should be considered.
> 
> However, we could do several things:
> 
> - Request two new sponsors for the motion at the start of this agenda item.
> - Request whether there would be any opposition to, due to exceptional circumstances, a second deferral of the motion.
> - Vote on the motion at this meeting, and accept the outcome as the decision of the Council, which is what we do for every motion anyway.
> 
> If we go ahead and vote on the motion and it does not have two new sponsors, we may have to deal with possible proposed amendments. In this case, as there would be no-one to accept them as friendly, I suggest that we would have to treat them as unfriendly by default and vote on them first.

A priori, I'd be willing to be a sponsor and get involved in carrying this forward, but first would like to determine whether any amendments would be advisable. As the motion has to be considered tomorrow on the Council call, I suggest we make this a priority item for discussion on tonight's SG call…?

On Nov 16, 2011, at 3:29 AM, Joy Liddicoat wrote:

>  (my  own favourites being the UFO group – which I guess is probably funded by aliens, but I am not sure of the business model or the nature of their non-commercial interests …;)  

Do they have a domain?  Maybe we could use some extraterrestrial orientation around here to further enrich our ontological contemplations….
> 


Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20111116/6f468024/attachment-0001.html>