[NCUC-EC] BA Travel

[Edward Morris]

Hello,


> > one thing we should not lose track of is the number one rule that
> > support should go to people who are actively engaged in processes
> > that will be taken on frontally at the meeting. So to me that
> > suggests priority for those involved in the bylaws rewrite. And do
> > bear in mind, NCUC never had a policy of supporting EC members
>
> Right. Actually, as far as I know there's never been a formal policy of
> any kind - it'd be good to have one, or at least some guidelines
> (as I seem to recall you've suggested several times).
> The above sounds like a good starting point.
>


This just illustrates the need to do what we are going to do: well designed
bylaws (presumably) supported by well considered operational procedures.



> > My groggy minded premise is simple. If they are going to take the
> > lead on catalyzing the bylaws process, Tapani and Ed must be there,
> > because that is our number one activity for the meeting, it will be
> > demanding, and they've expressed willingness to lead us home.
>


I'm a very big supporter of the design Bill has proposed for tackling the
bylaw rewrite. My experience suggests that legal documents written remotely
by committee usually don't turn out that well. Having the extensive F2F at
the end of the process is essential to overcoming some of the difficulties
remote drafting by committee presents. Ideally we'll have as many of those
who are heavily involved in the rewrite in the room in Buenos Aires as we
possibly can, EC or no EC.

I am a bit uncomfortable with our financial support going only to three
Caucasian males currently residing in Europe. I presume diversity is one of
the issues we'll be tackling in the bylaws rewrite. That said, there is no
wall preventing participation by any and all, it is most welcome EC or not,
 and as the process moves forward we can always reconsider Constituency
travel support. Obviously we want ICANN to pick up the tab for those coming
from the more expensive locales, if possible, but we'll just have to adapt
as best we can to the situation as it presents itself.



>
> > If we want to split a piece of NCUC's funds out as reasonable flat
> > rate grants to the others that's ok
>
> "Flat rate grants" are not exactly fair, given that travel
> costs from different locations vary a lot.

If we want to provide partial funding to some, I'd suggest we'd
> pay airfare in full (or perhaps deducting a fixed sum from it)
> and skimp on hotel and per diem instead.
>


As ICANN shifts meetings from continent to continent, over time presumably
opportunities would equalize. That said, Tapani, for a particular meeting
your point is well taken.

If we decide to go the flat rate support model, I'd suggest basing our
support on a percentage of the amount approved by ICANN for air fare
reimbursement for those Meeting participants who initially buy their own
plane tickets and later are reimbursed for their expense. Geographic cost
differentials are built into the ICANN model. This would mitigate the
geographical expense imbalance potentially caused by the flat rate model.
It would create a bit of uncertainty for our own budgeting, but I believe
that the increased equity in the system would be worth the cost.


> Based on my own experience (you'll recall I arranged my own
> funding for Beijing), I think newcomers should be given
> significantly lower bar for getting in at least one meeting,
>


I'm of two minds about this: One, it would fit the rotation principle
that's also been a part of our discussion. Two, we need active participants
on the ground. The rotation principle applies, in my view, only when the
condition precedent (active participation) is met. Funded travelers need to
be able to contribute on the ground, a condition I believe it is one
newcomers certainly can meet.

In the future,  I'd suggest newcomers be required to apply for a
fellowship, if eligible,  before being considered for Constituency travel
support.




> to give them a kickstart so to speak in joining the work.
> So I would really like to see Zuan there, even if he's obviously too
> new in this to promise or commit to much concrete work at this point.
>


Given the extraordinary circumstances of the year I believe that is a
reasonable position.

That said, I'd like to hear a bit from Zuan about what he might be able to
contribute to our ground effort if he is funded to come.


>
> Also, someone (Ed, I think) suggested that the Annual General Meeting
> is important enough to have maximal NCUC presence there, perhaps
> justifying getting the entire EC there.
> I've never been to an AGM before so I can't really judge that,
> but it doesn't sound too unreasonable to me.
>


I think some would argue this point.

A lot of the veterans skip the summer meeting. This is true across
constituencies. Of course, the issues on the table at a particular meeting
also play a role in attendance.

Thus, the AGM is the first time (at least this year) in seven months a lot
of people have been in the same place. Along with the changing of the
guard, the last session of the current GNSO, there is a sense of agenda
setting that seems to go on at the AGM. I use the word 'seems' because
there are those here with much more experienc than I e that very well
believe this not to be the case.

I actually would favour proposing to ICANN that travel slots be distributed
to Constituencies and support groups on a yearly, rather than per meeting
basis. The flexibility would be most welcome.




>
>
> > Now, if we are all fully committed to making this happen, then as I
> > say I will write to Glen and ask for a room and any other ad hoc
> > support they may be able to provide. Imagine say 10-15 people come a
> > day early to do this; if ICANN won't cover it, we should be prepared
> > to put up a couple thousand for the extra hotel night. Which of
> > course leaves less for larger-scale discretionary travel.
>
> An update on how much money we have at this point would be useful,
> but I'm sure we could afford to fund at least one traveler in
> addition to such hotel costs in any case.
>
>

Unless his view has changed, I'm happy to continue to support Milton's
suggestion of a $5,000 per meeting budget for travel support provided
benefit to the Constituency can be shown.


Ed
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20130810/bc8e08bf/attachment.html>