[NCUC-EC] Additional Travel Support Requests

Fri Mar 6 15:26:20 CET 2015

Hi

Well, our new Travel Policy was well greeted, but is now getting a little bit of challenge.  We were thinking of it in relation to the three regular ICANN meetings, but now we’re getting requests from heavily involved volunteer colleagues seeking support for others related meetings.  Stephanie Perrin’s looking for some support to attend the upcoming Berlin group meeting in Seoul where data protection commissioners will discuss inter alia the upcoming WHOIS changes she’s been working on for us in the expert group (revised proposal forthcoming, turns out they’ll cover her plane ticket so we're just waiting to hear on her other charges).  And Now Ed Morris is looking for support to attend the upcoming accountability meeting in Istanbul (I can’t believe ICANN’s not covering the volunteers working on this).  

On the general point: we can 1) stick with the longstanding NCUC practice and deal with such small requests on an ad hoc basis, keeping an eye on our general target for annual travel expenditures (we’d said $4,000 x 3 but of course can go a little higher if really merited, as long as PIR makes it annual contribution…would be helpful if CGI.br <http://cgi.br/> returned to being a supporter as well…); or 2) amend the policy statement on the website and inform everyone accordingly.  Personally, I worry that formalizing this could mean we get a flood of budget requests for meetings that are good and important but not central to our participation in ICANN, and then we would have to deal with explaining turn downs etc.  But I’m open minded if people feel the EC making decisions on a public list and reporting them in meeting minutes (as we will when we accumulate enough stuff to decide/announce) is insufficient.

On the specific case: we allocated $4,000 for Singapore and only awarded $2,000, so at the moment we have flexibility.  I think both Stephanie and Ed should be at the meetings they want to attend, they’re doing tons of stuff for us.  Ed is only asking for $800 but that allows no per diem and assumes el cheapo hotels, so I would prefer to offer him $1,000.

Thoughts?

Bill

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> Date: March 6, 2015 at 2:40:18 PM GMT+1
> Subject: Funding Request
> From: Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>
> To: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
> 
> To Bill,
> 
>  
> Per the procedure stated on the NCUC Travel Support Policy web page, please accept the following funding request for the EC to consider.
> 
>  
> Kind Regards,
> 
>  
> Ed
> 
>  
>  
>  
> To the NCUC EC,
> 
>  
> I’m writing to request funding so that I can attend the Accountability face 2 face meetings, March 22-24 in Istanbul, Turkey. This is not a request I actually want to make. There are many places I’d rather be than a hotel room in Istanbul the week before Easter. I just have come to the belief that if I don’t get to this meeting a lot of what I’ve been working on in the Accountability effort on behalf of our membership will be lost. Unfortunately as a less than wealthy individual member of the NCUC I don’t have any source of organizational or personal funding to finance this trip.
> 
>  
> The NCUC travel policy does not seem to specifically cover, or exclude, travel to F2F meetings such as this. I recognize that as an EC member you need to prioritize expenditures. There may also be one additional meeting on Accountability this year for which another funding request may need to be made.
> 
>  
> Nevertheless, I shall herewith attempt to explain why you may wish to fund this trip, doing so by responding to questions 1-6 contained in the text of the NCUC Travel Policy.
> 
>  
>  
> 1. Voted in the previous year’s NCUC election, if eligible at the time.
> 
>  
> I was and did.
> 
>  
> 
> 2. Are actively and verifiably engaged in NCUC’s work, for example constituency governance, NCUC/NCSG policy discussions, or GNSO Working Groups.
> 
>  
> 
> I shall focus this answer on my work in Accountability. I am also involved in NCUC work as a GNSO Councilor. In addition, recently I worked with Stefania Milan in drafting the initial NCUC response to the Westlake draft report.
> 
>  
> Although several NCUC members joined the CCWG Accountability group at its inception there are four of us who have been fairly active, as defined as regular attendance at the weekly two hour Accountability group call: Avri (100% attendance), Robin (85.7%), myself (78.6%) and Matt (64.3%). Avri, as the ATRT2 expert, and Robin, as our appointee, are funded by ICANN for this meeting.
> 
>  
> Most substantive work in Accountability  is being done at the subgroup level where Robin, Matt and myself are active.
> 
>  
> There are four active working parties at the subgroup level. I am in active in all four.
> 
>  
> I serve on WP1 with Matt and Robin. There have been three WP1 calls. I have attended all three. I am currently working with Roelof Meijer of SIIDN in WP1 in drafting the template guidance documents pertaining to proposals to change ICANN into a membership or delegate based organization under the California Corporation Code.
> 
>  
> I serve on WP2 with Robin. There have been 2 WP2 calls. I have attended both. I am currently the “leader” in reviewing the role of the Ombudsman and also am serving on the team reviewing the Reconsideration process.
> 
>  
> I serve on the legal sub-team with Robin. There has been 1 legal call since I joined the team. I attended that call. We are currently working on selecting independent counsel. It is hoped the hire will be in Istanbul, one of the reasons I hope to be there.
> 
>  
> I serve on the Stress Test sub-team. I am the only active NCUC member on this team. As there seem to be attempts to influence the front end (WP1, WP2) through manipulation of the rear end (ST) I think it’s imperative we have someone on this team monitoring events.
> 
>  
> 3. Need to be at a given meeting because the above mentioned work will be advanced there.
> 
>  
> 
> I certainly will do my best to continue to advocate for increased accountability and transparency within ICANN on behalf of our membership.
> 
>  
> As important as the positive impact my presence in Istanbul might have, it’s what I might be able to prevent that is just as important. I’ve already experienced the downfall of not attending an Accountability F2F. I was quite active in the initial Accountability WG4- Contingencies. A number of my proposals were accepted. Yet when the first F2F Accountability meeting in Frankfurt was held my ideas were dropped and substituted for those supported by the CSG. Informal meetings before remote participation was enabled saw agreements made that I contend were against our interest and in which we had no participation in making. As I was the only active NCUC member in WG4, by the time I realized what was going on from my remote location it was too late to alert Robin and have her intervene.
> 
>  
> More recently I stepped away from intense involvement in Accountability to work on our Westlake response. Although away for only a few days, I returned to discover that the review of all transparency items had disappeared. It simply had fallen through the cracks between WP1 and WP2. Robin and I are working together now to get this restored. These issues are so complicated and intricate that less than full attention or participation  has extremely negative consequences.
> 
>  
> 4. Agree to participate in the NCUC, NCSG and GNSO meetings to be held during the meeting.
> 
>  
> 
> Although this question, per se, is not relevant to this F2F, I certainly will attend any and all meetings I can. We’re already seeing a proliferation of pre-meetings on Sunday, some simultaneously. Although I can’t be in two places at once, neither can Robin. Hopefully between us we can attend all of them.
> 
>  
> 5. Agree to write a brief post-trip report for the NCUC website reflecting on the meeting’s main developments of relevance to NCUC.
> 
>  
> 
> I would be happy to do so.
> 
>  
> 6. Did not receive NCUC funding to attend the immediately previous ICANN meeting, unless exceptional circumstances require their presence at two consecutive meetings.
> 
>  
> 
> I have never before requested nor received funding from the NCUC for any reason.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> AMOUNT
> 
>  
> As airfares and hotel rates constantly change I would ask that the EC act as soon as possible so, if approved, the following costs may be locked in.
> 
>  
> Air fare  (Manchester to Istanbul, return)   £ 325
> 
> Hotel (4 nights)  £200
> 
>  
> Total   £525   (about $790)
> 
>  
> Please note the air travel would be on Turkish Airlines. The hotel would be one of three two star hotels, similarly priced, located about a 15 minute walk from the meeting hotel. The conference hotel prices excessively at £497 for this period.
> 
>  
> Before booking anything I will look at alternate arrangements (e.g. secondary airports) in an attempt to reduce cost.
> 
>  
> Thank you for considering this request.
> 
>  
> Ed
> 
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> ᐧ

*********************************************************
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/20150306/61ea0b0f/attachment.html>