[NCUC-EC] [NCUC Beijing conference] Budget Requests for Policy Conferences [URGENT]

[William Drake]

Hi

Thanks Brenden for the comments.  You too, Ed.

I take your point about IGF and the Annuals, although normally they're at least in different months.  We could also make it a practice to do it annually at the summer or spring meetings, but not in 2013.  And the spring meetings we have a new NCUC EC and other stuff to do (I'm asking for funding for one day meets prior for EC in the Tool Kit…I'd share the URL with you but just noticed that for some reason messages sent to ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org in the past couple days are not in the archive at http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/....just slow?

Anyway, let's mull when in the annual cycle is best, and can talk in Beijing as well.  The immediate point is, so far no votes for a Durban FT request…

BD

On Mar 22, 2013, at 2:29 PM, Brenden Kuerbis <bkuerbis at internetgovernance.org> wrote:

> Bill, 
> 
> Thanks for this holistic analysis.  I tend to agree that pulling together a day-long NCUC policy conference prior to an ICANN meeting (which I do think is a good thing to do) more than once per year is a stretch of our limited human resources.  
> 
> One concern I have about the approach you suggest (i.e., one in concurrence with the annual meeting) is that timing-wise it would be around the same time as IGF (another event at which I think its good to have some kind of NCUC presence). And therefore, we'd be especially taxed during that time frame, and there may potentially be substantive overlap between the two NCUC events. But maybe I'm over thinking this problem.
> 
> In terms of funding requests to ICANN for these events, I would restrict NCUC's request to an IGF event (in addition to the administrative requests you mention).  In doing so, we can maintain consistency with ICANN strategic objectives of developing a "healthy Internet governance eco-system," and claim high ground relative to all the other supporting organizations currently hitting the ICANN gravy train.  I think NCUC can continue to work sucessfully with our traditional supporters to ensure an independent, successful annual policy conference. 
> 
> -- Brenden
> 
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 7:56 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
> Hi
> 
> While I hate conversations that spill across two listservs with only partially overlapping memberships, Fast Track Budget Requests are due today, and I would like input from the Program Team as well as the Exec. Comm.  Decisions have to be made and potentially implemented and this will take time, so  I would really appreciate any and all helpful inputs from anyone here. 
> 
> After the Toronto policy conference went well, some folks here got all enthused and started saying hey let's organize a conference at every ICANN meeting, NCUC's full of academics who organize meetings all the time and this will be our special market niche, ICANN staff loved the conference and wants us to do more, etc.  First stop was to be Beijing.  Mary and I expressed strong reservations about how easy it'd be to do this there, whether ICANN really would want to 'risk' its charm campaign for Chinese engagement by having the 'trouble makers' from NCUC organizing something where unpredictable types could make comments about FoE and such, etc.  But everyone else was psyched, so we shut up and rolled with it.  And so it turned out that ICANN in fact didn't want us to do this and would only give us two hours, the programming of which seems not to be progressing too rapidly.
> 
> But, I understood, staff were ok with us doing something in Durban, lights were green.  However, since I'm working on FT requests I thought hmm better be sure lights really are green and we don't need to do anything, so..
> 
> On Mar 22, 2013, at 8:07 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
> 
>> On another note, I sent a message to Xavier yesterday just to check and be sure that ICANN support for a policy conf. In Durban is locked in (I'd understood the traffic to mean that when they shot us down in Beijing it was sweetened with 'but Durban is ok').  Uh, no.  He says no commitment of support was made and of course we have to submit a Fast Track request.  Glad I asked...Ay yi yi...
> 
> I'm now wondering about the wisdom of rushing out a request for a meeting in Durban.  I would like to suggest a different path, which is to hold off and try to do one serious policy conference per year at the Annual Meeting.  Buenos Aires is in November, so we'd be asking for support via the regular budget cycle (requests are due 19 April).  Some reasons:
> I don't believe the staff really thinks NCUC has some special market niche with conferences and panels, as lots of (preferred) parts of the 'community' are doing this now and will be in the future.  To me, it actually seems like they're in a rather different place, as evidenced by this terse reply from Xavier, "I am not aware that any approval for funding has been given by anyone for Durban or Buenos Aires. The requests for such have not yet reached us and I don't know any other channel that could have appropriately been used to obtain such approval."  So right after there's been some testy back and forth about what they did or didn't commit to do for us in Beijing, it's not obvious that it'd be good timing to immediately turn around and ask for money for the same thing in Durban.  We might not get the desired response if we're viewed as just pushing pushing all the time on this.  And if we start making multiple regular budget requests for conferences, I suspect things could get more difficult.  To me, it'd make more sense to make one patently 'reasonable' request per year, which is to do a conference as part of the annual meeting.
> I worry that we might overplay our hand with Fast Track Requests if we ask for Durban money and lose out elsewhere.  Robin already has Fast Track Requests she's planning on submitting today for NCSG EC travel to meetings, NCSG brochures and communiques per meeting, and NCSG travel to the IGF.  In parallel, I'm submitting for NCUC brochures and travel to the IGF.  Plus we are submitting SG and UC replies to the GNSO Tool Kit Services survey asking for new money for webcasts, wiki support, record keeping and member data base…So we're hitting them with a lot of requests, and while the amounts aren't large perceptions may be, plus they'll be getting many other requests from across the community at the same time to divide up a fixed Fast Track pie.  I would be pissed if we got turned down on expenses that might really raise our profile among new audiences and get new members, like the IGF workshops I mentioned and the brochure, because we also asked for $ for Durban.
> I am somewhat skeptical that we actually have the capacity to be constantly organized policy conferences.  SF and Toronto took a good deal of time, Beijing planning is just inching forward with just two weeks to go, and there are other drains on our respective ICANN bandwidth allocations, such as the constituency building effort.  Once a year I think we can do and do well, the other meetings we can ask for a workshop in the main program like we have now. Seems like enough to me.
> In the particular case of Durban, if we're really pumped to do something outreach oriented, we probably can do it without an all day conference with ICANN support.  If we work with the APC folks we could try to organize a meeting with African civil society off site, it'd not be hard as they have a big presence there.  Maybe something in the afternoon with a work component and then an evening social component...
> And even if you all disagree with me and really want to ask for Durban money, here's the thing: I just found out we'd have to request it today, and I have absolutely no idea what I'd be asking for, which conference logistic components funded at what levels etc.  I've had zero interaction with staff on these matters previous, and being eight hours ahead of California am not going to be able to get trained up by Robin (who's probably in bed at the moment) before going out for the evening in a few hours (other commitments, life).  I can get out the FT Requests I'd planned on, but realistically cannot pump out a credible Durban request today.  So the only way it could be done is if Robin submitted it on behalf of NCUC.  Personally, I'm not persuaded that'd be a good idea, and would rather hold for Buenos Aires and a regular budget request in April.
> Thoughts, please?  
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20130322/48b0cf97/attachment.html>