[NCUC-EC] BA Travel

[William Drake]

On Aug 10, 2013, at 2:06, Tapani Tarvainen <ncuc at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 09:16:35AM -0400, William Drake (wjdrake at gmail.com) wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
>> there is zero presumption that being on the EC means travel to any
>> particular meeting.
> 
> Zero? A tiny bit more, I think.

Not saying never, but rather any particular. Big difference.  All this travel funding stuff is pretty new...the 3 supported slots have only been a year or so, and I don't think NC had a practice of paying for more than 1-2 on its own.  Milton could explain.

> 
> Not much more, though: EC members, apart from the Chair, should have
> no automatic entitlement or other hard claim to travel funding.
> If that's what you mean, I fully agree.
> 
> But I should think that being on the EC implies presumption
> of some level of activity

Recently yes

> , and thus EC members are the first
> ones to ask when travel funding is considered. That has certainly
> been the case in the past.

Yes of course. Just please note it's a very short past
> 
>> 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.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> But as a rule I think we should try to use same funding rules
> as ICANN (apart from using cheaper hotels).

Ok, And avoid huge cycles on ex ante hypothesizing.  Why not agree a limit, $5k having been suggested, then get concrete cost proposals and make adjustments etc.
> 
>> but they really do have to be creative and make it work.
> 
> 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,
> 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.

All for kickstarting
> 
> 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.

The AGM is important to ICANN but it's not necessarily key to us.  Depends on the work cycle.  In this case, we have the bylaws. But in Singapore we hopefully have a funded EC retreat day to strategize for the year and a full day policy conference for outreach etc.  To me it would be more important to more hands on deck in Singapore.

> I've never been to an AGM before so I can't really judge that,
> but it doesn't sound too unreasonable to me.
> 
> And it would be nice to have the entire EC physically present in same
> place at least once a year (although I note Wilson hasn't told if he'd
> be able and willing to come to BA at all).
> 
> Actually we might want to push ICANN for providing more
> travel slots for AGMs... maybe next year.

Best not to fantasize.  We're lucky they kept the 3, for now.
> 
>> When I mentioned institutions, I meant Carlos, Milton, and I
>> believed CONAC staff seem to get covered via other sources.
>> Apparently I was mistaken on CONAC.
> 
> So it would seem.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-ec mailing list
> Ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec