[NCUC-EC] Durban, South Africa Supported Travel

[William Drake]

Hi

Glen wrote to me again today saying please tell us who is traveling.  We need to move toward an answer.

Responses to Ed's missive above, my suggestion for action at the bottom.

On May 14, 2013, at 11:51 AM, Edward Morris <edward.morris at ALUMNI.USC.EDU> wrote:

> 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.

I don't see them withdrawing it, but either way that's a down the line issue.
> 
> 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.

Ok, appreciate the honest assessment, Ed.

> 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.

Yes, that's become clear, even though Xavier said when I complained about them putting off the brochure request that some left over monies might be available for this FY.  No follow up and now we're less than two months out, so to push them for an answer and an allocation and then organize the text and the printing and rest…I don't see it happening before Buenos.

> 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.

I don't anticipate a lot of our members.  However, as I've said before, we will probably be doing something off site in conjunction with the APC and its Google-funded summer school, a session on NCUC and GNSO participation geared toward Africans, and a reception (we'll need to put up a few grand of our reserve…I think it's a fair deal).  So there probably will be an outreach event.
> 
> 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,

Because people argued trying to organize a conference in the autumn would be difficult with IGF etc and timeline, whereas London will be a very well attended meeting.  But I will ask for workshop space in the regular program, as I have for Durban.

> 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.

You're sort of undermining your I don't need to be there premise...
> 
> 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 you're referring to me you can call me Bill.  It's not about what I intend to do.  It's about what we intend to do.  I'd thought maybe we'd get into this in Beijing to Durban period, but meanwhile the stuff that's started prior hasn't progressed to delivery yet, so probably it make sense to try to get things done before doing the next.

> 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. 

Rob Hoggarth reminds that it also has to be vetted through staff.  But again, can we please try to tackle current crises before taking on new stuff? 
> 
> 
> 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.

We do have that option.  If you look at the budget sheet Milton sent some months ago the previous EC did so.  It's part of why we have funds!  At the same time, we do need to do the reception as a good faith exchange for APC & the summer school giving us program space.  So we're already going to blow a few grand.  But if some smallish allocation would be enough to get someone additional there who'd really help out with stuff, then it's an option.
>  
> 
> 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?

Yes yes there are existential timing questions but we need to act.  
> 
> 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.

Not sure why.  NCUC can go ahead and allocate its slots to its members as it likes.

> 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.

Ok…

Well so I am supposed to get back to Glen tomorrow and don't feel like I'm in a good place on this.

Wilson would like to go.  Tapani is willing but thinks he doesn't have to.  Ed sounds the same.  No word from others here.  Acceptance of the principle of making available to general members based on 'need to be there' etc. but no specific suggestions on how to operationalize that, especially on a very short time frame.  

As I briefly scan our lists (am at the WTPF meeting) it's not clear whether there'd be any 'must be there' candidates in terms of involvement in policy discussions.  There's a few folks I could make cases for based on nice contributions to GNSO WGs and such but I don't know that they have critical stuff coming to a head in Durban and don't have the bandwidth to determine this by tomorrow.  Under these circumstances, I'm inclined to say that due to a) EC need to get it together and progress things and b) lack of clarity as to more compelling alternatives, we should try to use the slots as they've usually been, to get as much of the leadership team there as possible.  

Of course, in exchange I would strongly encourage that steps be taken to advance projects—website, outreach, etc—so that on constituency day you each have some specific function and case.

Tapani didn't get any support last time; fairness suggests some rotation.  Could we split the two slots to get Tapani, Ed and Wilson there?   I assume Wilson's flight will be the cheapest.  Maybe NCUC reserves could help fill a gap at least a bit, but then it'd really good to have a "I"m presenting xyz deliverable" type rationale….

Please let me know,

Bill

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20130516/3252cde2/attachment.html>