[NCUC-EC] Travel to Dublin Meeting

[William Drake]

Hi

I got email from Glen saying we need to identify our covered travelers by 17 July.  It’s getting earlier and earlier..

In principle it would be great if we could somehow get everyone there and have a full EC meeting/dinner to finish off the year, as our terms will come to an end a month or so later.  (yes, people here and elsewhere need to start think about standing for positions, NCSG even earlier)  In practice, it may not be possible but let’s see what the situation is.

Who expects to have coverage from home institutions or ICANN programs? Who would need support?  Two slots to work with.

Bear in mind our previous discussion on this,


> On Mar 13, 2015, at 7:43 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
> 
> It seems to me based on prior and this conversation that there is recognition of the following sorts of points:
> 
> *Everyone understands that travel support is a scarce and precious resource.  When someone travels someone else who might have done something for us does not, so the travelers really do have a moral obligation to be contributing in some manner.  Of course, the ways in which people contribute can take a lot of different forms, but they need to be tangible enough for people to see. While there are better supported parts of the community where relatively passive participation (some call it tourism, a bit rough) is not unknown, in our case we have just a couple slots with which to ensure that NCUC is able to actively and visibly engage in these working meetings in order to advance civil society interests.
> 
> *All else being equal, travel opportunities should rotated.  Of course, all things being equal is justifiably an infamous assumption in economics.
> 
> *And with regard to rotation, it should be recalled that there has never been a presumption in NCUC that travel support of any kind is de facto for EC members. Historically, if we felt we needed someone to get to a meeting, the EC would allocate funds from our little piggy bank.  As these monies---raised from PIR in particular and at times CGI.br <http://cgi.br/>, ISOC, others I’m forgetting—are limited, there really had to be a work-related rationale.  Then a couple years ago ICANN decided to provide 3 slots per constituency; if I recall correctly from the annual budget notations this is still technically considered to be a pilot program, and could be changed.  This allowed us greater flexibility, and since we wanted to encourage EC members to become engaged contributors, we started sharing the slots around here unless there was a compelling reason for a different decision.  But that doesn’t mean that travel support is wired inextricably to EC members, or that simply by being elected one gets travel. Covered travelers need to be doing stuff, or it becomes rather awkward to explain the allocations to other members, or anyone else.
> 
> Blending these points, I believe the correct decision model would be sort of
> 
> 1) Is there someone we really need to have at a particular meeting because of activity they’re involved in, e.g. an important WG meeting negotiating a text or whatever; if yes they should be seriously considered for support, if not then all things are sort of equal so
> 
> 2) Support is rotated among elected (and I’d argue, appointed, i.e. NCSG EC and PC) representatives so everyone gets a chance to participate and deepen their engagement.  
> 

Thanks,

Bill

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20150705/094345f5/attachment.html>