[NCUC-EC] Please Respond: Assessing Travel Support Requests for BA

[William Drake]

So at present, with revisions we have

Stefi:	Arun and James
Roy:		Arun and James
Bill:		Arun and James
Joao:	Arun and Monika
Grace:	?
Peter:	?

And out Treasurer supporting Arun and James from the peanut gallery.

Applicants have been mailing me privately asking when we would have an announcement.  We said we’d do this in a week, so I’d like to be able to give answers on Saturday latest, please.

Bill





> On Apr 29, 2015, at 6:16 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> 
> My take on it is that the key developing issues in Buenos Aires will be IANA transition and the accountability CCWG. Those issues will be coming to a head, in a very critical way. Based on what I have seen, Arun and James (Irish) are the best equipped to participate in that. Arun has coalesced analysis and stakeholders around both accountability and IANA transition issues in India; James is an active participant in CWG. 
>  
> I believe the HR issues will ripen more in time for the Dublin meeting, so Monika would be better brought into that meeting.  
>  
> From: ncuc-ec-bounces at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:ncuc-ec-bounces at lists.ncuc.org> [mailto:ncuc-ec-bounces at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:ncuc-ec-bounces at lists.ncuc.org>] On Behalf Of William Drake
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 3:45 AM
> To: Exec. Comm
> Subject: [NCUC-EC] Please Respond: Assessing Travel Support Requests for BA
> Importance: High
>  
> Hi
>  
> The Travel Support Policy states that " The Executive Committee will review the proposals and strive to make decisions within one week of the close of the application period.”  This cannot happen unless people participate in a dialogue and come to a reasoned decision that can be explained.
>  
> So far we have heard that
>  
> *Joao suggests  Monika and Arun
> *Roy suggests   Monika and James
> *Stefi suggests  Monika and James
>  
> Of these, only Stefi cited any reasons: 
>  
> On Apr 26, 2015, at 3:04 PM, Milan, Stefania <Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu <mailto:Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>> wrote:
>  
> Based on this, off the top of my head I would suggest Ireland-James and Monika. James, to ensure continuity (he was in Istanbul, too), and Monika to bring forward the work towards the CCWG. Although, also Arun seems to be up-to-speed with the accountability debate... and, should we adopt a geographical balance principle that some of the EC held quite close to their heart, then we might want to avoid supporting two Europeans (hence Arun would be awarded the money). If we want to adopt some geo principle, then I would strongly be in favour of a gender balance approach, too --hence Monika. 
>  
> So I don’t really know what the group’s thinking is and how I'd characterize it to the applicants or other members.
>  
> I would have preferred to hear more, from everyone, before weighing in, but time is now running short.  So I would suggest James and Arun.   I think our priority at this meeting is to have as big a footprint as possible in the transition and accountability processes, which will be coming to a head in BA.  People who participated F2F or remotely on Constituency Day in Singapore will recall that we had George Sadowsky from the Board visit us and say he didn’t ‘see’ NCUC engagement and contributions to a lot of current discussions.  Of course, one could reply he ought to look more closely because we do in fact have multiple people involved in multiple settings (perhaps that they do so as NCSG confuses, who knows), but the fact that anyone from the board could think we’re just twiddling our thumbs internally rather than actively participating and contributing is not helpful, particularly with the GNSO Review underway (with Westlake having slimed us in the draft report) and wider structural changes potentially in the offing as a result of the accountability process.  NCUC would be well served by unquestionably being all over this stuff, especially with newer and diverse faces alongside the familiar veterans.  Look at the preliminary schedule http://buenosaires53.icann.org/sites/default/files/icann53_blockschedule_april2015.pdf <http://buenosaires53.icann.org/sites/default/files/icann53_blockschedule_april2015.pdf>, there are two full days of transition and accountability meetings the 18th and 19th, followed by a number of additional ones throughout the week plus the GNSO which will undoubtedly discuss these items as well.  The BA meeting is fundamentally about the transition and accountability processes, which are very time sensitive and constitute a turning point in the history of ICANN and Internet governance.  
>  
> All things being equal I would happily have supported funding Monika, but at this meeting things aren’t equal. As much as I’m delighted to have her on board and helping to drive the human rights work, that is an ongoing process that is inchoate, not on most of the community’s radar yet, and moving forward incrementally.  There will be one, maybe two sessions on it (I’ll be surprised if meeting staff agree to two, but you never know), and we will be talking about it continuously going forward so there will be many opportunities to engage.  If she can’t get funding from another source and has to participate remotely, that’d be a drag but politically less impactful than being thin in the  transition and accountability sessions. Since the meeting to follow will be in Europe, probably she will be able to get there one way or another.  I would also note that we got her CROPP funding to attend the EuroDIG meeting, so it’s not like we’d be failing to show our appreciation of her contributions.
>  
> In easier circumstances I’d have been happy to James Njoroge Gitau.  As with Ben in Singapore, getting newer or so far less engaged members (particularly from the developing world) to meetings is a good thing to do when we can.  But again, this meeting strikes me as one where we want fully up to speed and engaged people representing us.  James and Arun have quickly made their presence felt in the Istanbul and online transition and accountability meetings, and I’d think we’d want to deepen their participation with us and these processes.  Were we to agree to make offers to them, we could make these conditional on them agreeing to come early and attend the meetings the 18th and 19th.  If they get cheap hotels off site that shouldn’t be too big an ask.
>  
> So that’s where I am at the moment, but I’m open to persuasion. At present we have three expressions of support for James and Monika and two for Arun.  Please share your thoughts and let’s move toward a decision on the timeline we have announced to the world.
>  
> Thanks
>  
> 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
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/20150430/6b7b75a0/attachment.html>