[NCUC-EC] Urgent: Travel Funding Applications for Singapore

Sun Dec 21 13:47:03 CET 2014

Hello everyone,

I join you in agreeing Joy Liddicoat's
application. She is indeed and has been proving to be active in NCUC as well as NCSG.

For  the other two: James Njoroge
Gitau (who I do not come to know yet) and Benjamin Akintunde Akinmoyeje (who I
do know, as we are ICANN 49 Singapore Fellows, also with Joao ).
I would not come out with hasty decisions. My rationale are as follows:

As stated in the announcement launched by
Bill "[NCUC-DISCUSS] Call for proposals for Travel Support to the
Singapore ICANN meeting‏", Bill has made it clear that "Again, the
intention is to facilitate the participation of members who are actively and
verifiably engaged in NCUC's work, for example constituency governance,
NCUC/NCSG policy discussions, or GNSO Working Groups, and will agree to the
terms and conditions outlined below and at http://www.ncuc.org/governance/travel-policy/ ,

Besides, Stefania has also stated that "we
should adide to what we state there" in terms of the Policy. I take it that we should remember where and why we have started with the new NCUC Travel Support
Policy. (If I am wrong, please do correct me, @Stefania)

Given what I interpreted Bill's announcement and Stefania's view, I think the
core principle or core pilosophy of the Policy is "actively and verifiably
engaged in NCUC's work, for example constituency governance, NCUC/NCSG policy
discussions, or GNSO Working Groups." 

 In terms of "strictness" in implementing this Policy, every application must meet all of the criteria of the Policy. If not meet all, at least, an application must meet the core criteria as I mentioned above. 

I do understand Bill's "two
minds", yes, we do encourgage member's participation, but by indicating
intention of participation or engagement or by indicating interest is not
equivalent to "actively and verifiably engaged in NCUC's work, for example
constituency governance, NCUC/NCSG policy discussions, or GNSO Working
Groups." 

 The reason that has made me come with my decision regarding Benjamin's is that  when reviewing Benjamin's application, I noted that
Benjamin said "I plan to be ICANN Singapore meeting as I intend to observe
proceedings and become more active /engaging member of NCUC/NSCG/GNSO".
Actually, he did not make his plan clear or specific, as Bill pointed out, he has indicated "interest". Find out interest and fit into NCUC/ NCSG/GNSO is the personal effort one does need to struggle with. For this Policy, we do fund those who already have his or her interest and do have participated in.

The last reason I may come with my decision is that his application has been late,
3 days later than our Wed 17th Deadline. (Here I would like to state my view on
the "Deadline".  As Bill has educated us in the "[NCUC-EC]
Welcome to the NCUC EC (long)‏". Our Working Methods can be
"informal", I propose our deadline CAN NOT BE. For future, we implement deadline in this practice. We should let people know that we do
enforce strict deadline. This is the first time implemention of new NCUC Travel Support Policy and people are looking at us.

 For James', what I learnt from Bill's knowledge about him is that he really has done some voluntary work, however, he did not demonstrate his "participation" in NCUC/NCSG/ GNSO.

So finally, I agreee with Stefinia (as well as Roy's, Bill's, as I take it that Bill mentioned "reapply") that we adopt
Option 3: we apporve Joy's application, while encouraging James and Benjamin to really get involved in NCUC and contribute someting and reapply next time.

WE should remember where and why we start
with this Policy.

Then how about a vote? (or may not) We have had 4 vs 2 regarding Option 3 (provided
that I did not take Bill's wrongly)?
For any addtions or insights, welcome more discussions. Let's be a group  and let this discussion be a group discussion.
Thanks
Best RegardsPeter
From: rballeste at stu.edu
To: Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu; william.drake at uzh.ch; ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 21:03:05 +0000
Subject: Re: [NCUC-EC] Urgent: Travel Funding Applications for Singapore

+1 Roy

From: ncuc-ec-bounces at lists.ncuc.org <ncuc-ec-bounces at lists.ncuc.org> on behalf of Milan, Stefania <Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>

Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2014 9:45 AM

To: William Drake; Exec. Comm

Subject: Re: [NCUC-EC] Urgent: Travel Funding Applications for Singapore

I will reply more extensively later today, but as a conversation starter, I support option 3. As someone who supported this idea from the start, and contributed to draft the guidelines/requirements, I think we should abide to what we state
 there. Hopefully, this would also encourage people to get more involved to be able to apply and have more chances next round.

But I am also curious to know what Grace thinks, and whether she can add any insights.

Thanks to Bill for getting this going. 

Da: ncuc-ec-bounces at lists.ncuc.org <ncuc-ec-bounces at lists.ncuc.org> per conto di William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>

Inviato: giovedì 18 dicembre 2014 10.06

A: Exec. Comm

Oggetto: [NCUC-EC] Urgent: Travel Funding Applications for Singapore

Hi

Our first promised task, which we can handle now via email, is to decide on applications for the newly announced travel support program for Singapore.  http://www.ncuc.org/governance/travel-policy/ We
 have received just two applications as of the deadline yesterday.  The first is from Joy Liddicoat, our former GNSO Councilor and current rep to the NCSG EC.  http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/2014-December/001518.html When
 the application came in, Roy, Grace and Stefania expressed their support. Now that the app period is closed, I will express my strong support as well, I think it’s imperative that she be in Singapore. If we could hear from João and Zuan/Peter that’d be helpful
 in coming to a conclusion on this.

The other application is very different so we need to brainstorm. It is from James Njoroge Gitau.  http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/2014-December/001523.html As
 I don’t know him and there wasn’t much background info in his app message I wrote to ask for more. Hey says he joined NCUC in 2011, and that he works on a 100% voluntary basis at a Community Resource Center called KASWESHA based in a slum area in Nairobi,
 offering free internet services to the less advantaged and needy communities, and also offering networking skills to women and youth using Cisco Networking Academy curriculum.  Which all sounds wonderful, albeit a bit remote from ICANN issues.  From what he’s
 said he’s never been involved in NCUC other than voting and sending a few messages to the mail list, which a priori would suggest that he doesn’t meet two of our key criteria, "Are actively and verifiably engaged in NCUC’s work, for example constituency governance,
 NCUC/NCSG policy discussions, or GNSO Working Groups [and] Need to be at a given meeting because the above mentioned work will be advanced there.”  Basically, while he’s been around for three years he’s not been involved, and is looking for a “first exposure”
 opportunity. 

I’m of two minds here.  On the one hand, we want to encourage new members.  On the other hand, the program was specifically created to help people who have already manifested an interest in getting engaged and really do need to be at a given meeting
 because something’s happening there relevant to work they’re involved in.  Those conditions obviously don’t apply here.  I wonder about the signaling of either accepting someone who doesn’t even begin to reach the bar we’ve set (could unleash a flood of similar
 apps in the future) and alternatively of rejecting a newbie from a developing country.  I guess I incline toward the view that he should be encouraged to reapply after getting involved and being able to demonstrate this (he could for ex: join and be active
 in the Members Affairs Team we will reboot, focusing precisely on newbie inreach etc). but I am open to persuasion.  Two other points: If he’s 100% volunteering in a slum I’m going to guess he may not have the funds to make his own travel arrangements and
 then ask for reimbursement per the policy.  But we are not the World Bank, and can’t have Milton wiring $2,000 to someone in advance without knowing what may happen.  Also, I would suggest that we get advice Grace on this, who also is in Nairobi, may know
 him, and could perhaps follow up directly with him to clarify matters if need be.  If he also would need a visa and and official letter of invite, we are in no position to provide help there (Grace maybe you can say what your experience with staff regarding
 your letter for DC has been).

Anyway, we should decide those two cases by the weekend so approved travelers can begin planning.

Bill

***********************************************

William J. Drake

International Fellow & Lecturer

  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ

  University of Zurich, Switzerland

Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 

  ICANN, www.ncuc.org

william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),

  www.williamdrake.org

*********************************************** 

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination,
 distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in
 error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. 

_______________________________________________
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/20141221/1a26c752/attachment.html>