[NCUC-EC] Additional Travel Support Requests

Fri Mar 6 21:39:44 CET 2015

I support their being funded but agree with Stefania entirely on the need to have a tight policy to avoid (un)necessary requests. 
RgdsGrace

From: rballeste at stu.edu
To: Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu; william.drake at uzh.ch; ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 14:45:04 +0000
Subject: Re: [NCUC-EC] Additional Travel Support Requests

Agree 100% Bill and Stefania.  Indeed, Stephanie and Ed had been quite prolific, and these are challenging times.

But, having a policy specific enough is also a matter of being practical.

Best Wishes,

Roy

From: ncuc-ec-bounces at lists.ncuc.org <ncuc-ec-bounces at lists.ncuc.org> on behalf of Milan, Stefania <Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>

Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 9:33 AM

To: William Drake; Exec. Comm

Subject: Re: [NCUC-EC] Additional Travel Support Requests

Thanks Bill for sharing the requests and your thoughts about it.

in principle, I am happy to support both of them, BUT we need to develop a policy able to cover cases like these, and go public with it as we share the news of supporting Ed and Stephanie. I can start drafting
 it on the basis of the other travel support policy we have, if desiderable. We need to make it tight enough so that next time I don't ask NCUC to find my holidays in the sun :-) (to start with, it is not merely for participating to events of relevance, like
 CROPP is in a way, but to enable participation to working groups of direct and proven relevance to NCUC work. "To advance policy work" ect)

Ok also with giving Ed 1000 dollars

Da: ncuc-ec-bounces at lists.ncuc.org <ncuc-ec-bounces at lists.ncuc.org> per conto di William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>

Inviato: venerdì 6 marzo 2015 15.26

A: Exec. Comm

Oggetto: [NCUC-EC] Additional Travel Support Requests

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 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

*********************************************************

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding,
 or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the
 sender and delete the material from any computer. 

_______________________________________________
NCUC-EC mailing list
NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
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/20150306/5c239b9d/attachment.html>