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

Thu Jan 17 18:03:36 CET 2019

Thanks. Consultant and RA are two different things, but it would still be
worthwhile to inquire about that and see if anything good came out of it.

Best,

On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 9:15 AM Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> Yes this was actually a pilot program, and we declined to participate.  I
> don't think it is actually funding per se, it is the use of a research
> assistant that ICANN has procured (I am not sure how).  Supervision of a
> research assistant is another responsibility to add to our leadership team,
> and some may not wish to have that additional responsibility, but if the
> pilot program is still ongoing, I am willing to inquire about its progress
> and assessment of its utility.
>
> Stephanie
> On 2019-01-13 19:06, Ayden Férdeline 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
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20190117/21373fdc/attachment.html>