[NCUC-EC] Travel to Dublin Meeting

[William Drake]

That’s great Roy, would be excellent to see you at an ICANN meeting!

I strongly agree with Tapani that we need to have Robin there in light of her central role in the accountability work and more.  Since I won’t need my slot, we could reallocate that one to her.  Beyond this, if we follow the rule that “who needs to be there for the greatest bang for the buck” is key, we might consider Jeremy Malcolm from EFF, which is just joining.  EFF is a big dog in this space, and their one foray into GNSO stuff a couple weeks ago got a lot of press. I know EFF wants to get into the privacy stuff big time, which is huge right now.  Frankly, they have money and I’d hope they fund him themselves, but it seems he’s still having to sell it..so let’s keep an open mind.  Or he could apply for the $2k, which I already mentioned to him, but that might not cover all costs from California.

Matt Shears is another centrally involved person we need to find out about.

If it transpires that there’s wiggle room and we can just rotate slots among EC people, then that would suggest Stefania and Joao, methinks.  But let’s see.  Again, we have the $2k option, and for Stefania being in Europe that might be a possibility.

Best

Bill

> On Jul 8, 2015, at 8:45 AM, Balleste, Roy <rballeste at stu.edu> wrote:
> 
> Dear colleagues, I will not need funding for Dublin. My employer has offered to cover me.
> Best,
> Roy
> 
> 
> Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
> 
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> From: William Drake 
> Date:07/07/2015 16:46 (GMT+01:00) 
> To: "Exec. Comm" 
> Subject: Re: [NCUC-EC] Travel to Dublin Meeting 
> 
> Hi
> 
> I have just reconfirmed that I can go to Dublin on Euralo’s dime, as the representative of the Committee for a Democratic U.N. (an ALS).  I’ve done this at two prior European meetings and it’s apparently still valid.  Which means that NCUC has three open Covered Traveler slots, not two.
> 
> Bear in mind that per previous our order of priorities should be 
> >>> 
> >>> 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.  
> 
> 
> So we need to make that first determination, be it an EC or non-EC person.  And then move to the second.
> 
> It sounds like from what’s been said nobody has other support at present, so we will take that into account.
> 
> BD
> _______________________________________________
> NCUC-EC mailing list
> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org>
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec <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/20150708/16556767/attachment.html>