[NCUC-DISCUSS] Community budget request 2017

Fri Feb 12 03:11:24 CET 2016

Hi everyone,

thanks for the comments and feedback. I would like to provide some comments
below:

   - the purpose for the conference request is to secure a budget for such
   event if we want to go in that path. it is about fiscal year 2017 so that
   doesn't apply to Panama meeting which is within FY2016.  there is no
   guarantee that such proposal will be approved. however it is better to try
   now because there is no way to get that later after passing this process or
   time window. we have to plan long ahead for anything involving resources.
   - the details of such conference can be worked out when we decide to do
   it: it can be in November 2016 or next year till June. We can make it 100%
   NCUC led conference, or more community oriented or partnering with
   organizations outside ICANN. we will learn from previous experiences and
   take all suggestions in count.  Matthew proposal sounds quite
   policy-oriented/planning and not just about having panels and discussions.
   - 2 days meeting would have lesser chance to be approved. so we have to
   be more realistic here.
   - as Bill explained in his response, the planning and organization won't
   necessarily involve the same folks, we are trying to balance the workload
   here .

for info I am copying here the list of proposals regarding policy that we
will make:
- Capacity building to train members for policy work
- IT and tools support for membership e.g. tools for policy consultation
- Admin and policy staff support
- funding policy efforts such as privacy

as you can see, we have definitely in the mind the need to work on policy
in general  and getting more members involved in policy making and prepare
them for that.
We can add the proposal about "seminar/training for public comment drafting
and working group participation" in addition to  above-mentioned capacity
building which is more online oriented. a short descriptive paragraph would
be helpful here

Again, we are trying to make several requests here, we may get some and not
for others. afterwards, we will work on how to get some ideas like NCUC
mentorship etc setup and implemented.

Best,

Rafik

2016-02-12 3:47 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:

> Hello,
>
> For those who want to do the work on a future policy conference I think
> Bill has outlined a good way forward. The 2017 date makes sense as do the
> reasons to proceed. Frankly, one of my concerns was that with Bill doing
> his NomCom service we would lose a man who in past conferences have done
> the work of five others. It's a lot of work to do one of these things but
> if there is the will and volunteers to do one, and it won't detract from
> our GNSO work, it's all good.
>
> Best,
>
> Ed
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From*: "William Drake" <wjdrake at gmail.com>
> *Sent*: Thursday, February 11, 2016 4:10 PM
> *To*: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net>
> *Cc*: "Matt Shears" <mshears at cdt.org>, "NCUC-discuss" <
> ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
> *Subject*: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Community budget request 2017
>
> Hi
>
> I share Ed’s concern that we are underrepresented in many of work areas of
> GNSO policy, and agree that rectifying that should be a priority. At the
> same time, it is not completely evident that there’s a zero sum trade-off
> here. We may have members who’d be disinclined to fill the GNSO gaps
> anyway, for various reasons, but who would be more prepared to put some
> time into a conference. And it could be that getting engaged in something
> like this would subsequently lead to dipping toes into the GNSO work…as
> Stefania noted, she followed this path from conference to the Council.
>
> The amount of work involved varies depending on the ambitions and the
> extent to which we seek to engage other parts of the community and bridge
> build. The 2014 Singapore conference had that as an explicit design goal
> and so involved a significant amount of coordinating and schmoozing. It
> paid off to the extent that we had a packed room of 130+ audience members
> who stayed for eight hours and it helped NCUC’s standing, but it took time.
> So I wouldn’t dismiss the potential benefits, or the costs.
>
> So I’d try to determine a) what unique and compelling substantive topic(s)
> might such a meeting explore, most likely at M 1 of 2017; b) would the
> conference be optimized for NCUC doing its own thing, or with
> cross-community relations in mind; and c) is there a core group of folks
> who would have the bandwidth to see it through, without detracting from
> GNSO work. If there are good answers on all these fronts, I suspect staff
> would be happy to allocate the necessary resources, budget permitting.
>
> Bill
>
> > On Feb 11, 2016, at 16:08, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
> >
> > I'm going to be the contrarian here.
> >
> > We are starting several highly time intensive PDP's on core issues to
> our community such as WHO2 and RPM reviews. We are in the middle of a GNSO
> restructuring. Accountability continues with work stream 2, a work stream
> where many of our core issues such as transparency and human rights are at
> issue. Tens of public comments come and go with nary a contribution from
> the noncommercial community. Two close next week and I don't believe we
> have anyone working on them.
> >
> > Policy conferences are nice but I'd suggest they are not a core function
> of the NCUC. They take time and resources to organise, two commodities we
> don't have a lot of right now.
> >
> > If folks want to go down this road I'd suggest we need to partner with a
> NGO that has the bandwidth and money to organise such an event. We
> certainly can provide the policy expertise and panelists, for example, if
> they could provide the organisational man/woman power. I also question
> whether these should be held at ICANN meetings. First, the new meeting
> strategy virtually precludes having these at the 4 day B meeting. Second,
> with all that is going on who has the time at the meetings to attend or
> participate in a policy conference? Events are already scheduled on the
> days preceding the meetings themselves that many of us need to attend.
> >
> > Now a seminar on how to write public comments, perhaps one on how to be
> effective in working groups...IMHO these types of seminars should be our
> priority. Our colleagues in other groups are fighting for policy wins, not
> conducting policy seminars. I'd suggest we should focus on doing the same.
> >
> > Ed
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >> On 11 Feb 2016, at 13:16, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> I would like to support - if it is not to late - an idea that I believe
> Farzi/Rafik floated some time ago - that of a Policy Conference.
> >>
> >> Apparently we have done these in the past - San Francisco, Toronto and
> Singapore
> >>
> >> I would proprose a one or two-day Policy Conference with three specific
> components/goals: 1) deep dives with invited experts into priority and/or
> new policy areas; 2) working sessions to coordinate on/progress PDPs and
> other policy priorities; 3) assessment of progress and planning on policy
> priorities generally.
> >>
> >> I see this as a great opportunity to come together and drive policy
> work forward (there is no substitute for F2F), build capacity among those
> interested in policy work and getting more involved, outreach to experts
> from other parts of the community, etc.
> >>
> >> Matthew
> >>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20160212/c146732d/attachment-0002.html>