[NCUC-EC] Please respond: travel support policy for policy work

Thu Apr 9 15:55:15 CEST 2015

Yes! Approve

_
João Carlos Caribé
(21) 9 8761 1967
Enviado via iPad

> Em 09/04/2015, às 07:15, Grace Githaiga <ggithaiga at hotmail.com> escreveu:
> 
> Yes
> 
> Subject: Please respond: travel support policy for policy work
> From: william.drake at uzh.ch
> Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 10:43:40 +0200
> CC: rballeste at stu.edu; ggithaiga at hotmail.com; caribe at entropia.blog.br; Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu; seekcommunications at hotmail.com
> To: ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org
> 
> Hi
> 
> So three days later, no comments, I assume this means everything is fine.  So ok, please let’s vote and get this off my desk and onto the website so I can announce the BA call for proposals and Milton can process reimbursement requests accordingly when they come in.
> 
> Approve revised travel policy, please tick:
> 
> [ ] Yes
> [ ] No
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> 
> On Apr 6, 2015, at 3:50 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
> 
> Hello
> 
> Thanks again Peter and Stefania for taking a crack at this.  Attached please find my suggested revision.
> 
> I made a number of changes, in general to be clearer and more conservative for book keeping/resource conserving purposes, e.g.
> 
> 1.  Stating the overall annual thresholds we can spend up to for the two main elements. One would expect that our actual outlays would be less than the amounts for each. And below the thresholds we have flexibility, e.g. for non-ICANN meetings if five members each spend less than $1,000 there’s still something left in the kitty if we get another request for some small change, like just hotel at a working group meeting.  
> 
> 2. Stating explicitly that we cover xyz documented costs rather than giving out a flat amount irrespective of actual costs incurred.  Our prior ‘up to’ formulation wasn’t precise enough without this, and we can’t just send people money for undocumented expenses.  If ever we had to explain what we are doing to donors or (god forbid) the tax authorities, that wouldn’t be good.
> 
> 3. Relatedly, per Stefania’s suggestion, making it clear that we can’t do per diem.
> 
> 4. Deleting the "In exceptional circumstances (i.e. involving otherwise unmanageable financial hardship) it may be possible to provide the transfer in advance upon submission of a paid airline ticket receipt and confirmed hotel booking.”  I recognize this may preclude someone from applying, but upon reflection there’s really no choice, we cannot just pay out a money ex ante to people who for whatever reason might not actually get to the meeting in question. It doesn’t take a vivid imagination to see how that could go wrong.
> 
> 5. Adding mention of hotel extensions, which we have in the past done on an ad hoc basis.
> 
> 6. Clarifying where the money’s from, in case someone asks (lots of suspicious folks in the ICANNsphere).
> 
> 7. Adding Peter’s suggestion that the blog post be submitted before reimbursement begins.  Otherwise people may be slow to do this small task, or turn it into a big thing in their heads (it only need be a couple paragraphs) and not do it at all.  Make sense?
> 
> 8. As this is a standing policy I don’t think we need to say when it was started or revised within the text.  And of course a future EC can revise it if necessary, so we needn’t note that either.
> 
> 
> We need to move this along quickly and get the new policy in place before we start to process requests we have approved (Ed and Stephanie) or expect (James) when they come in.  Moreover, it’s getting near time to issue the call for proposals for the BA meeting.  
> 
> Please see the attached.  If you want to suggest edits, please do so by Wednesday, whether in an email or by using the Track Changes function in Word and sending the doc back.  If there are no suggestions by then, I will call a vote to be completed by next Saturday so we can get this posted.
> 
> Again, once we have received the above mentioned reimbursement requests (the first two of which we’ve already approved), maybe I will aggregate these decisions and anything else we’ve done of late (have to check email records) or will need to do soon into a single pro forma yes/no poll and send that out as an ersatz “EC Meeting” so when we’re done there’s a single record that can be posted to the web.  We’ve only had one EC meeting this year, and the Bylaws call for four.  Not that we should meet just to meet, but what decisions we do make should be posted in a manner that doesn’t require people to read through the archive of this list.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> On Apr 2, 2015, at 2:46 PM, PeterGreen <seekcommunications at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Bill, Hi Folks,
>  
> Sorry for being a bit late in posting. Please find attached the revised and integrated NCUC Travel Support Policy.
>  
> What I think is worthy to be highlighted is that the current version is built upon what Stefania has done previously. And thanks for tips from Bill.
>  
> What I have done is integrating and reframing. In addition, you would see I have added different titles for corresponding sections and themes in order to make the policy more well organized in its overall structure.
>  
> Sorry @Stefania, I am considering not adding the "No per diems will be reimbursed via this scheme [the scheme for ICANN-related meetings]". We would discuss on that.
>  
> Saying so, I want to draw your attention to the points @Stefania has made previously.  
> Let's now have a follow-up on those points made by @Stefania and the current version reframed by myself.
> For convenience, those points are copied below:
>  
> {
>  
> Two further points:
> 
> I suggest no per diems are paid through this policy. This is not designed to punish our volunteer members who sacrifice for a working group, but it is intended to maximum the number of people we can fund per year. We are eroding NCUC budget after all, and we should avoid being too lush at the beginning, only to have to cancel the funding scheme right after...
> If we wish, we could also suggest this funding scheme is a try-out for a year. This is somehow a special year, with the IANA transition, the GNSO review, the WHOIS review, ect. -- so we can take it as a pilot here, try this out for 12 months and then see how much money is left, and whether we can afford to continue the program. (The same could apply to the travel support policy for ICANN meetings)
> I wanted to add something about rotation of grantees but not sure it makes sense: policy work in working group is in one's own personal capacity, so people cannot be 'easily replaced'. Therefore I suggest we don't include this 'rule' but strive to create or encourage diversity 
> What about postponing reimbursement only after the receipt of the blog post? Too though on people who already volunteer much of their time and energies?
>  
> }
>  
> If there are any points that need to be covered, please point out.
> Listen to your suggestions.
>  
> Best 
> Peter
>  
>  
> <NCUC Travel Support Policy [BD revision 04.2015].docx>
> _______________________________________________
> NCUC-EC mailing list
> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
> 
> *********************************************************
> 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
> Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q
> *********************************************************
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20150409/dc342699/attachment.html>