[NCUC-EC] Fwd: Durban, South Africa Supported Travel

[Edward Morris]

Hello.

This is a rather tricky situation. Durban is particularly problematic
because it is far and away the most expensive ICANN meeting location to fly
to for any of the announced meeting sites for all except those located in
Africa. It is even more expensive for many Africans than Europe, for
example, would be. Air connections to Durban, unlike J-burg or Cape Town,
are quite horrid and expensive.




There are three travel slots.  Presumably the chair needs to go, so that
> leaves two.  The criteria we've loosely used in the past to allocate have
> included 1) preference for people who have been particularly active in a
> GNSO Working Group or EC project or whatever whose presence is needed at a
> given meeting, either for GNSO purposes or for intra-NCUC project
> management/Constituency Day purposes; 2) some rotation and "spreading it
> around" so different involved people get a chance to attend; 3)
> consideration of both EC and general members; 4) etc?  (I'm digging through
> a swamp of mail over morning coffee and don't have time right now to look
> through past threads to remember if there was something else).
>


I think it makes sense to look at the totality of meeting support when
determining allocation of travel funding. We're assuming the ICANN support,
at three NCUC designated members per meeting, will be continued post
Durban. I do not know whether that is a safe assumption or not.

Using the criteria stated above, which is certainly the criteria we have
been using,  I see no real reason I need to be in Durban to carry out my EC
responsibilities. Until the NCSG EC decides it is able to admit members I'm
hesitant to carry out any major outreach. We currently have 19 individuals
and 2 organizations sitting on the list waiting approval. Some have been
waiting in excess of two months. Organisations can wait, but individuals
tend to lose their enthusiasm when their applications disappear into the
big, black hole that is our parent organisation.

In Beijing I outlined a roadmap for successful Meeting outreach. It
involves event planning beginning two months out from the event. I targeted
Buenos Aires to initiate this project. By then it is hoped we'll have
actual physical brochures to go along with our motion picture to use to
recruit new members. I have little hope we'll have brochures ready by the
Durban meeting. Without printed material, without advance planning and
targeting, there is little to be done in Durban in terms of Outreach. As a
summer meeting in a rather expensive, remote location I also do not
anticipate a large turn out of our membership for Inreach purposes. It
would be nice were I to be wrong.

Insofar as rotation is a principle in play here, I think my EC
responsibilities would be better served were I to be in Buenos Aires than
in Durban. Although it seems our event planning has been reduced from what
was initially discussed (event budget requests have been transferred to the
London meeting, a meeting under the direction of a new EC) we should have
the materials and the time to actually implement a legitimate Outreach
effort in Buenos Aires. As the AGM it also is likely to be a meeting that
draws a larger turnout of our own members.

A problem in selecting travel funding recipients on the basis of need of
attendance is we have to make our selection two months out. That's
difficult, if not impossible, to do and is the best argument to select on
the basis of function rather than policy need. I'll use myself as an
example.

We're currently waiting for a decision from the BGC on the TM+50 issue. If
the Board does not decide in our favour I've prepared a number of options
that will be available to use should we wish to continue to pursue the
issue. It would be very beneficial for me to be in Durban to further this
effort, if need be. As of May 14th I have no idea if the need for me to be
there will be there.

Thanks to an introduction by Kathy in Beijing, I'm in communication with
Sally regarding some ideas I've had about joint outreach. I've also
initiated communication with Fadi concerning his Los Angeles commitment to
retain Transparency International to conduct an audit of SO/AC's. I have no
idea where these conversations are headed. There may be an opportunity / a
need for me to meet with either Sally or Fadi in Durban, there may not be.
As of May 14th I have no idea.

I've also indicated a desire to work on the new implementation / policy
group that currently is being established. Would me being in Beijing be
valuable in that effort? Are other NCUC members joining the effort? Again,
as of May 14th who knows?

One never wants to miss a Meeting. Yet for the reasons stated above I can't
make the case that it is essential for me to be in Durban ahead of others.
I can not definitely ascertain what I'll be doing policy wise at that
point, the rotation principle would better suit me being in Buenos Aires
than in Durban and my EC  roles do not require me to go to South Africa.
Unless...

I do not know what the Chair intends to do regarding the Bylaws rewrite. If
we're going ahead with this project I strongly suggest what needs to be
done is for a few people involved in the process to pretty much lock
themselves in a room together  for several hours and just do it. The
resulting draft can then be distributed for comment and change. Legal
drafting is not something that lends itself to remote or distributed
completion. If that were an approach to be taken then I would want to be
involved with that.




> Also, I should remind you that different ways of allocating are possible,
> e.g. two fully supported travelers with plane, hotel and per diem, or
> splitting it across more people, so like one person gets travel and another
> gets hotel, etc.  I don't recall exactly how this works, if the per diem is
> a separable third item or goes with one of the others, but could check if
> there's interest.  Of course, it's understood that unless they have another
> source of support, most travelers would prefer full to partial; I'm just
> noting that it's an option.  I think Mary Wong's taken partial before,
> probably others.  Anyway, for Beijing I believe Wilson and Ed were fully
> supported.
>


It's a shame we are locked into ICANN's hotels and travel agency. I could
easily double the number of our attendees were I able to book travel at no
extra cost.

I should note that may be an option for the IGF. As some are aware, Sarah
Clayton and I had accommodation in Baku that was 1) about 1/4 the cost paid
by most CS members, 2) closer to IGF departure points and 3) of higher
quality.

We also have the option of increasing those of us on the ground by dipping
into the NCUC treasury. If we do so I'd suggest limiting that to support
those from the cheapest embarkation point(s) (in terms of flight) and
arrange for lodging at a less than 5* hotel in order to maximize the impact
of expenditures.






>
> So: dividing scarce resources is awkward, but we have to come to a
> decision that's fair, consensual, and serves NCUC's needs in Durban.   I
> guess first establish who here's interested and the cases for them needing
> to be there, and also your thoughts on how to deal with the extra-EC
> question?
>
>
I simply do not know how to deal with the extra-EC question when we need to
chose attendees two months out. As ex-EC members, by definition, have no
formal responsibilities how are we to know what exactly our policy needs
will be two months out?

If we are to open travel selection to nonEC members, an idea I fully
support, it needs to be done in conjunction with our parent SO and
Constituency partner. As we all share the goal of increasing effective NC
presence on the ground at ICANN Meetings, a joint policy, in part, designed
to maximize our impact is called for.


Ed



>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-ec mailing list
> Ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20130514/195e4a1d/attachment.html>