[NCUC-EC] URGENT: ICANN Buenos Aires Meeting

Thu Mar 12 21:01:02 CET 2015

Dear AllI am catching up with mail now, so apologies if I have caused any delay. Had connection challenges due to power failure.
I think it should be understood that we all operate on different contexts and not exactly doing 100 percent NCUC work. My suggestion is that the opportunities be rotated/shared among EC and members as happened in Singapore. I think it is also important to keep a record of who the opportunities have gone to ensure balance and fairness. I know I didnt also go to London and my slot went to Anriette because she was critical to the meeting at that time. 
Currently, I am in the planning committee of the DNS forum 2015 which will be hosted by Kenya.  
RgdsGrace

From: william.drake at uzh.ch
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 13:35:43 +0100
To: seekcommunications at hotmail.com
CC: ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org
Subject: Re: [NCUC-EC] URGENT: ICANN Buenos Aires Meeting

Hi
On Mar 12, 2015, at 12:15 PM, PeterGreen <seekcommunications at hotmail.com> wrote:Hi Bill, 
Since it is urging, I would try to be as brief as possible. 
Compared to years of exprience and work of other members in NCUC, I am new, and new as an EC member, only about three months,  but I do see the same with you that it is the responsiblity of us acting as EC members to reach and involve more peole to participate, even that is not sufficient, we have to stand to in-reach and out-reach.
And in this context it should be noted that Peter is working with another NCUCer in China and his home institution colleagues to launch a Chinese translation initiative for NCUC materials, which is really great. So that certainly counts as ‘active’ in my book :-)
Best
Bill

Given the current situation, agree with you and propose that we continue the rotatation since the Singapore Meeting.
Let's hear @Grace's thoughts and then we need to make a quick desicion.
BestPeter

From: william.drake at uzh.ch
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 11:00:51 +0100
To: Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu
CC: ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org
Subject: Re: [NCUC-EC] URGENT: ICANN Buenos Aires Meeting

Hi Stefi
On Mar 12, 2015, at 10:35 AM, Milan, Stefania <Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu> wrote:Dear Bill
thanks for this reminder, and for the hints. I am currently (with some delay due to a very busy week) drafting an extension of the rules for our travel support policy, and I was thinking exactly along your lines. I think the question 'who does NCUC need to have at a meeting because of their activities undertaken on our behalf' should be the guiding principle. It is a particularly busy year for ICANN in general and the NCUC is no exception. Luckily we have quite some members in key working groups and processes. In my humble opinion, this work has to be prioritized above any geographic representation.
If you ask me, I would go as far as suggesting a change in the 'job description' of the EC. Outreach might no longer be sufficient. Active engagement with at least a working group should be the minimal requirement.
Well, I think active engagement in something is expected already, it simply doesn’t happen.  This need not be in a policy WG, it could be in NCUC administrative stuff, such as outreach (on which I don’t know what if anything people are doing…perhaps some quarterly reporting would be useful), building the website and its content, encouraging in-reach and debate on the lists (I note that while 5 of us are on http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/roster/membership-affairs most have not said anything…hopefully they’ve filled out the questionnaire though), etc.  

Speaking of personal experience, it is not easy especially at the beginning. It took me time (last year I mostly engaged in 'practical' work behind the scenes, rather than policy), but I believe that having had the rule in place might have 'forced me' to be less shy. 
I would not like to think we have to ‘force’ people who stand for election to represent members and support the constituency to do stuff to represent members and support the constituency.  I’d have thought there were sufficient incentives or else why stand, but that’s me...
I am happy to hear Milton and Matt are covered. What about Robin and Joy? Tapani? Is there room for any of them to apply for the 2 'NCUC travel grants'? (By the way, we might want to consider anticipating the deadline to 3 months instead of 2).
Rafik responded offline that Robin got the NCSG EC slot after discussion with Tapani, who does not intend to come. I don’t know if that’s because there’s no funding or he just doesn’t want to.  He’s had home funding for some past meetings, so my guess is if he wanted to get there he would.  He went to BA when he was on the EC if I recall.  
Rafik has not been in touch with Joy about this.  She did ask for a NCUC Travel grant for Singapore but then declined it after we went through the process of awarding it because she couldn’t get out of the office.  Given this experience, I guess we could operate on the assumption that the same situation may obtain and if she wants to come she can apply again when we announce the next round, which should be mid-April.
In which case I suppose we can say that given the time pressures and lack of identifiable and compelling counter-needs that the slots should go to EC members.  (Although I would still like to have the conversation you mention on EC engagement…)
So then it’s a matter of two slots and three expressions of interest.  Here the dilemma is that you have been the most actively working member of the EC over the past two years and are talking with LA folks about trying to organize something outreachy, but I believe you’ve also been the most frequent recipient of travel support (don’t have the records in front of me but you’ve been to a lot of meeting, nest pas?), including Singapore.  And I think when we were talking about Singapore slots we said that we’d try to rotate opportunities, so people were probably expecting that.
We need others to engage here so we can decide together what to do.  Let’s bear in mind that the NCUC support can also be an option for people…
Bill

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: giovedì 12 marzo 2015 09.41
A: Exec. Comm; Rafik Dammak
Oggetto: [NCUC-EC] URGENT: ICANN Buenos Aires Meeting Hi
On Mar 11, 2015, at 11:39 PM, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen at icann.org> wrote:VERY URGENT REMINDER ! 12 March is DEADLINE !Thank you.Kind regards, G
It is a bit difficult to make final determinations and notify staff of NCUC covered travelers without some discussion and agreement within the EC.  Could we please do this today?  We have two slots (not counting the chair's, who has to go), three EC members (Peter, Grace and Stefania) who’ve expressed interest in attending, and had no discussion of whether we might consider anyone else for this, i.e. our reps on the NCSG EC (Robin and Tapani) and PC (Matt and Joy), as well as any regular members who are actively engaged in working groups and such.  
Happily, Milton and Matt Shears have laterally informed me that they have funding to attend via their IANA and accountability work.  I don’t know what the situation is with the others mentioned.  Rafik, could you please inform us as to whose being covered with the available NCSG slot, or any WG slots (does Robin get one from accountability)?  And whether you’ve discussed with the others their plans?
I guess a bottom line consideration here might be, who does NCUC need to have at a meeting because of their activities undertaken on our behalf?  We have set that standard in the Travel Policy for member applications for funding via NCUC; should we also apply it to ourselves?  As far as I know it has never been the NCUC practice that slots automatically go to the EC members solely by virtue of them being elected.  Which is not to say that EC members shouldn’t be given slots, they usually have been, but one would think that the decision should be the result of a global strategic assessment of NCUC’s needs, no?  
Let’s please resolve this now, Glen has sent multiple escalating reminders and I don’t like having to always blow her off with “we’re working on it.”
Thanks
Bill 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. 
*********************************************************
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
*********************************************************

_______________________________________________ NCUC-EC mailing list NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec

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

_______________________________________________
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/20150312/60f8d8b8/attachment.html>