[NCUC-DISCUSS] ABRs - Welcoming suggestions until 14th Jan, noon (utc time).

Mon Jan 14 04:54:42 CET 2019

Interesting suggestions on the thread! It’s encouraging to see that the
focus expressed on the list is on more mapping/research work and more
organization of our past positions. I’m sure that with proper inreach, the
end result of both, can be attained.

On a side note, I personally found the Policy writing training to be very
efficient. If it were to developed further, it might be worthwhile to
include it in our proposed list.

Best,

Elsa
—

On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 7:26 PM Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix <
rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote:

> I see, thanks for that. Well, "we do our own research" as long as we
> actually have people doing research. Such is not the case, it's not like
> we're swimming in volunteer-hours. So I'd support adding that, even more so
> for the purposes that you stated which I think are highly relevant.
>
> As for the other one, I also get your point. It's sure that pure
> discretionary budget would get nowhere, but that is not what is in question
> here. Assuming there would be consensus for the idea, asking does not cost,
> so we can always try your rationale and see how far it fares ;) Maybe a
> smaller amount, asked for the purposes of a few years' worth of work, would
> seem less threatening? If total budget is 285k/y, 2.5% would correspond to
> 7k/y, 21k over 3y, which could be small enough.
>
> Best,
>
> On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 7:06 PM Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Raphael,
>>
>> There was a debate on this issue roughly two years ago, and a year before
>> that too. In essence, the Commercial Stakeholder Group accepts funding from
>> ICANN org to use consultants to supplement their research, but we are too
>> proud. In the past, questions have been asked along the lines of, 'Why do
>> we even exist if we cannot do our own research?' I happen to disagree with
>> this view.
>>
>> As for the Fund, I was thinking it would be good to have this resource
>> just there in case we had a need for it in the future; I would certainly
>> hope we would not exhaust it immediately. I would also be reluctant to
>> elaborate on what projects we'd be looking to fund. We want some
>> independence here; sadly, I doubt the research we should be supporting is
>> anything that aligns with the ICANN executive team's view of the world.
>>
>> Ayden
>>
>>
>>
>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>> On Monday, January 14, 2019 12:59 AM, Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix <
>> rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> James: Why would we not get the ABR for the consultant if we ask again?
>> Could you elaborate more on that? I think this idea is focused, narrow and
>> useful enough to get approved. Now I have no idea in ICANN's world what a
>> .5FTE amounts to. <
>>
>> I think your second idea Ayden is interesting as well, but given
>> deadlines now it might be worthwhile to flesh it out more for a next round
>> (hopefully before next year, but I suppose not...?) I think that we would
>> need actual examples of research or advocacy work we want to get done if we
>> are to get any money.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 6:51 PM Stephanie Perrin <
>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> seems like a lot given the total budget of 285K....maybe something a bit
>>> more modest and focused.?
>>>
>>> Stephanie
>>> On 2019-01-13 18:31, James Gannon wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 14 Jan 2019, at 00:22, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Just thinking out loud-
>>>
>>> Could it be useful to request the support of a 0.5 FTE policy consultant
>>> (of the NCSG's choosing), to support our ongoing policy development
>>> activities? I am thinking of someone to document past NCSG policy positions
>>> by creating an archived and searchable observatory of past NCSG, NCUC, and
>>> NPOC statements, and to engage in policy research activities in areas where
>>> volunteer burn-out has us stretched to capacity.
>>>
>>> Good idea, but we will not get it as we rejected the concept before (A
>>> huge mistep by us IMO)
>>>
>>> In addition, could we perhaps ask for a modest, one-off contribution of
>>> $50,000 to 'kick start' a Stakeholder Group Support Fund, given we have
>>> established over the past week on our list that the NCSG has no money. I
>>> would suggest that we would only use this Support Fund to support our
>>> advocacy work and independent research on the DNS, and we would cap spend
>>> at max. $20k/year, and that it would not be used to fund travel.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think that a more specific version of this could be useful, it needs
>>> to be for a specific reason however, a “to do what we want with” won’t get
>>> approved IMO.
>>>
>>> Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>>> On Monday, January 14, 2019 12:01 AM, Bruna Martins dos Santos <
>>> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> Just a quick reminder that the NCUC EC will be receiving Additional
>>> Budget Requests suggestions up until tomorrow *14th Jan, noon (utc). *
>>> best,
>>> Bruna
>>>
>>> Em sex, 11 de jan de 2019 às 16:37, Bruna Martins dos Santos <
>>> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> escreveu:
>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> ICANN Org is receiving additional Budget Requests until Jan 15th.
>>>> Therefore NCUC Leadership would like to welcome your suggestions and ideas
>>>> on possible submissions.
>>>>
>>>> Given that the deadline for submission to ICANN is 15th Jan, * we
>>>> would like to set an internal deadline for constituency
>>>> discussion/receiving of proposals until the 14th Jan, noon (utc).  I would
>>>> also welcome any volunteers to help drafting requests.  *
>>>>
>>>> Please note that the budget requests being accepted now are for the
>>>> fiscal year 2020 (which I believe runs 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020). Also
>>>> bear in mind that in light of some budget cuts being proposed/performed by
>>>> ICANN org, our requests should be strategic and aligned with the NCUC
>>>> mission and values.
>>>>
>>>> Last but not least, for ease of reference, all the FY19 Approved ABRs are
>>>> uploaded here: https://community.icann.org/x/zodHBQ
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> --
>>>> *Bruna Martins dos Santos *
>>>>
>>>> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
>>>> @boomartins
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Bruna Martins dos Santos *
>>>
>>> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
>>> @boomartins
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing listNcuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.orghttps://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
-- 
--

Elsa Saade
Consultant
Gulf Centre for Human Rights
Twitter: @Elsa_Saade
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20190113/f61b1e0e/attachment.html>