[Ec-ncuc] Travel funding for Beijing [urgent]

Mon Jan 7 13:37:14 CET 2013

I need to recuse myself from the current proposal for obvious reasons.

I agree that the Chair needs to be funded for all three meetings. I support
the principle of rotation amongst active Committee and WG members, emphasis
on "active".  We do need to get a policy in place for future meetings.
Concepts such as split awards, geographical considerations and the like
need to be evaluated. I'd also like to explore the possibility of
maximizing our support for the AGM and, if necessary, reducing things for
the summer meeting.

One of our challenges this year is that three EC members are Europe based
and there are no European meetings. Usually easier to self finance
attendance in your home region.

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 10:36 AM, <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

> I have just received a note from Glen saying ICANN urgently needs to know
> who from NCUC is going to Beijing.  The note suggests that we're behind
> schedule on informing them, although this is the first I've heard from them
> about it.  Whatever.  So we have to decide how to proceed.
>
> I think we can agree that one of the three slots should go to the chair,
> who has to run constituency day etc.  So that leaves two more.  We
> discussed making actual internal/external work contributions and/or the
> need to be at a meeting for a key working group session as criteria, which
> everyone seemed to support.  We also discussed the possibility of making at
> least one slot open to the general membership subject to the prior
> criteria; again, this is how we got to know Wilson, so that model works.
>
> Anyway, this is awkward.  I imagine there are five people here who'd like
> to go and just two slots even before we think about general members.  So
> how to proceed without disappointing or annoying someone....
>
> If we were to go on the basis of actual work done, at this point I'd
> probably suggest it be Wilson, who's taken a lead getting the web spaces in
> order (and will hopefully head up the e-platform team) and Ed (who's
> recruited several newly approved members and put forward a bunch of ideas
> on inreach and outreach, and will hopefully head up on of those teams).
>
> So how do we proceed?  Virtual coin toss?  Agree that the slots for Durban
> and Buenos Aires rotate?
>
> Whatever we do under the current rushed circumstances should be revisited
> for Durban when we have had more time to lay out a policy and assess actual
> engagement...
>
> Bill
>
> -----ec-ncuc-bounces at ipjustice.org schrieb: -----
> An: EC-NCUC at ipjustice.org
> Von: William Drake **
> Gesendet von: ec-ncuc-bounces at ipjustice.org
> Datum: 20.12.2012 09:21
> Betreff: Re: [Ec-ncuc] Travel funding
>
> Robin has reminded me that ICANN has not promised to continue funding
> three constituency slots beyond this fiscal year.  I tend to think they'd
> be reluctant to pull it back but who knows, so in any event this is another
> reason we need to stay engaged in budget discussions.
>
> On Dec 19, 2012, at 9:36 AM, David Cake wrote:
>
> >
> > On 19/12/2012, at 8:31 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >
> >> Speaking as Treasurer:
> >>
> >>> Yes, as Bill says this idea of actually having guaranteed  travel
> >>> slots is such a recent luxury (first applied in Toronto) that  we
> >>> haven't actually worked out how to deal with it yet.
> >>
> >> [Milton L Mueller] See below for my suggestion as to how to deal with
> it.
> >
> > I was referring more to us not really having a process for allocation of
> the ICANN constituency travel slots (other than 'EC decides'), but of
> course we do need to think about the process for NCUC funded travel as
> well.
> >>
> >>>> And NCUC has some money of its own, which the EC may decide to use
> >>>> for travel funding (previously, this was most of what NCUC funds were
> >>>> used for).
> >>
> >> [Milton L Mueller] In  my view, ICANN's decision to handle travel for a
> given number of NCUC and NCSG members should be taken as a first-order
> budget constraint regarding travel support. In other words, as a rule the
> Constituency and the SG should send to meetings only those people supported
> by ICANN; anything over and above that should be considered a highly
> exceptional circumstance. The reason is that NCUC funds should support
> capacity building of the constituency itself and its projects. Routine
> support of travel will dissipate our bank account quite rapidly; sending 2
> or 3 people per meeting per year could cost $10-20,000, for example. Until
> our Treasury is about 2-3 times what it has been, I don't think we can
> consider that. And adding 2 or 3 to the 5 or 6 already supported by ICANN,
> Nomcom, etc. is not that great an incremental improvement. Unless, as I
> said before, there are exceptional circumstances.
> >
> > While I think that the general strategy of relying on ICANN funding
> where we can, and reserving NCUCs own funds for other purposes, I'd suggest
> that rather than apply that strategy absolutely, we keep open the
> possibility of using NCUC funds to fund travel if we can get a good value
> for the money. If we have an NCUC person who lives geographically quite
> close to where the meeting is held, and where we can find cheap
> accommodation, it might be worth using NCUC funds to get them there.
> Sometimes sponsoring organisations might be able to contribute.
> > I'm thinking, for example, of my second ICANN meeting, in Nairobi - I
> was able to convince my organisation (EFA) to provide half the money
> needed, and I shared a room with Rafik to keep costs down.
> > Given we generally can manage to get a pretty decent core delegation
> that covers most of the more active members to meetings with the current
> travel arrangements, travel certainly shouldn't be a priority - but our
> strategy should also be to increase the number of active members, and
> getting people to meetings certainly helps with that, and if we can manage
> it cheaply now and then, it might still be worth it.
> >
> > And more importantly, I think there will continue to be some times when
> we want to get people in a day or two earlier or later than ICANN travel
> allowance provides, and we should continue to use NCUC to top up
> accommodation funds if we need to do so.
> >
> > But I agree with the general gist of Miltons view - ICANN has seen fit
> to give us sufficient travel funding to get all the essential members of
> our group there, and this frees us up to think of other uses for NCUCs own
> funds, and the marginal utility of having a fourth (apart from councillor,
> NomCom, etc) NCUC person there is a lot less than the first or second, so
> for the most part there will probably be a lot more productive uses for our
> money than travel now. What those might be is a different discussion.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ec-ncuc mailing list
> > Ec-ncuc at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ctyme.com/listinfo/ec-ncuc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ec-ncuc mailing list
> Ec-ncuc at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ctyme.com/listinfo/ec-ncuc
> **
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ec-ncuc mailing list
> Ec-ncuc at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ctyme.com/listinfo/ec-ncuc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ec-ncuc/attachments/20130107/bdd09fe3/attachment-0001.html>