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

[Tapani Tarvainen]

On Jan 07 11:36, william.drake at uzh.ch (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.

I take it this is only about ICANN travel funding, or do they want
to know also about people funding their own way there?

> I think we can agree that one of the three slots should go to the
> chair

Yes.

> ?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.

Yes. Travel funding can be very effective in drafting new active
people; we've had very good experience of that in Effi
(ask me some day how I wound up in Effi's board...),
although of course you can't expect 100% success rate.

I don't think we need to set a policy of always funding someone
outside the EC, but we should keep the possibility open. Given the
schedule now, however, I think we should send just EC members at this
time.

> 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....

I'll simplify it a bit by opting out now: I can, and will, fund
my own way to Beijing. (I'm assuming there're no problems in
this from ICANN bureaucracy or NCUC policies or whatever.)

> 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). ?

Sounds very good to me, although I'd like to hear if others have
some specific action plans (or proposals) for Beijing.


On Jan 07 12:37, Edward Morris (edward.morris at alumni.usc.edu) wrote:

> I support the principle of rotation amongst active Committee and WG
> members, emphasis on "active".

Yes. Specifically, I would consider (1) any specific action plans
(what people promise to do while in there, the more detailed the better),
(2) past performance (especially how well earlier plans have materialized,
but also general activity), and (3) rotation (to give as many people
as possible a chance to prove themselves).

> 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.

Agreed.

> 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.

Yes. I would be pretty sure to attend even at my own expense any
meeting in Finland. :-)

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen