[NCUC-EC] URGENT: ICANN Buenos Aires Meeting

[William Drake]

Hi

> On Mar 13, 2015, at 1:58 PM, Milan, Stefania <Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Bill for the long email, and for even doing some research.
> As an EC member, I am ashamed that you had go go through so much work just to take a simple decision.

Well, nobody has ever bothered to do such bookkeeping, including me.  We’re always focused on getting through the next meeting, over the next policy work hump, etc., which takes quite a lot of time already, so anything that doesn’t really have to be done typically isn’t.  And when nobody asks or identifies a need, then it can be like building admin apparatus for the sake of tidiness, which is less easy in a volunteer network than in a paid staff NGO. But I guess it’s not a bad thing to have a record, and if we can fill in the info to have it complete and accurate it can be used and built upon going forward.
> 
> My take on things (which doesn't concern me specifically, and not in this case. Read: I am not trying to get a free trip here)

Understood

> is that geographical balance is a silly way of making decisions. NCUC needs to support people who do tangible, much needed policy work, and, in second instance, work that supports the constituency as a whole (website, translation, etc). Having said that, geographical balance and rotation are good principles that should come in only as a secondary option-- meaning, when we have satisfied the needs of policy advocacy, which is the primary task of the NCUC (geographical representation is an add-on, as I see it).

This seems consistent with what I was proposing.
> 
> There is work I am doing (and I don't waste time making a list here, the relevant people know about it)

This one certainly does :-)

> that I would like to follow in Buenos Aires. I suppose itg can be followed from the distance too, at least to some extent -- that's what remote participation is for. 
> 
> On a different note, I hope some of the people who are funded will consider helping me in putting together the civil society outreach event, I am sure we can find English-speaking people in Argentina. 

Do bear in mind there are threads already running here on BA outreach events.  Again, I’d proposed a NCPH conference Friday. I now think that despite expressions of interest from BC, IPC and the ISPC in particular we are unlikely to get critical mass.  I might propose a NCUC-ISPC alternative, as I don’t know that staff will support just us doing something, as we did it last time and there’s politics. TBD. But there will probably also be crucial IANA and accountability meetings that this would compete with, which is an issue.  

Separately, there’s the Saturday outreach event.  I did a ton of work to organize the first one as an NCUC outreach event in London, but then as you know not only could we not control the agenda and attendance, but certain colleagues grumbled and grumped and demanded and so staff said ok now it’s all NC and we ended up with weird message-incoherent events in LA and Singapore.  I would like to make this space useful to do outreach to progressive groups and not confused with intra-ICANN BS, and have suggested to staff the NCUC and NPOC should have their own separate events and then a joint reception.  We’ll see, follow up pending, but either way that would be the logical time to do something, and we should invite some LA NGOs that do access to knowledge/IPR.

If instead/in addition you’re imaging something off campus and before the whole event, which would mean people have to fly in early and be housed and a space organized and all the rest…I’m not sure it’d work under the circumstances, but if others (e.g. Carlos) want to expend the time building something like that, great.

> And to conclude showing there are no bitter feelings: guys, I am afraid you loose a unique opportunity to learn the basics of Argentinian tango from this passionate dancer ;-P
> 
> All told, I am ok with the proposed decision. 
> Thanks Bill for your patience :-)

And vv.

Input from others would be helpful.  

BD

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Da: ncuc-ec-bounces at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:ncuc-ec-bounces at lists.ncuc.org> <ncuc-ec-bounces at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:ncuc-ec-bounces at lists.ncuc.org>> per conto di William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>
> Inviato: venerdì 13 marzo 2015 13.43
> A: Exec. Comm
> Oggetto: Re: [NCUC-EC] URGENT: ICANN Buenos Aires Meeting
>  
> Hi folks
> 
> I really have to give Glen the names today, she’s under pressure from other staff to provide.  So we have to decide.
> 
> 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.  
> 
> I just blew an hour digging through mail folders and this is what I can piece together right now on travel during my time as chair, think it’s right but not 100% sure:
> 
> 2015
> *52 Singapore: Bill, Stefi, Walid 
> *DC intersessional: Bill, Stefi, Grace, Peter, Joao, and Walid (Roy unavailable)
> 
> 2014
> *51 LA: Bill, Robin, Stephanie (replaced Stefi)
> *50 London: Stefi, Anriette Esterhuysen (replacing Grace), Dee Dee Halleck (Bill went on At Large funding, think other EC members had other funding or couldn’t come)
> *49 Singapore: Bill, Stefi, Grace, Pranesh (I got additional funding for an EC meeting)
> 
> 2013
> *48 Buenos Aires: Bill [can’t find records of who else]
> *47 Durban: Bill, Nuno Garcia, Marc Perkel (if that’s right…Tapani had other funding I think)
> *46 Beijing: Bill, Ed, Wilson
> *LA intersessional: Bill, Ed, Tapani, Wilson, Carlos, Norbert  
> 
> If anyone has records that can help fill this in please let me know. I’ve asked Glen but she’s offline. Anyway, based on the above, as we don’t have a non-EC person who’s said they really need to go, and based on rotation, I’d think it looks like the answer for BA would be Bill, Peter and Grace.   
> 
> I would also suggest that, in keeping with the spirit of recent discussions, we ought to expect tangible engagement in some NCUC work from all covered travelers.  If someone’s not materially involved in a process or project, they should become so, or at least write a good blog post about the meeting...
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Bill
> 
>> On Mar 12, 2015, at 9:01 PM, Grace Githaiga <ggithaiga at hotmail.com <mailto:ggithaiga at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear All
>> I 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.  
>> 
>> Rgds
>> Grace
>> 
>> From: william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>
>> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 13:35:43 +0100
>> To: seekcommunications at hotmail.com <mailto:seekcommunications at hotmail.com>
>> CC: ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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.
>> 
>> Best
>> Peter
>> 
>> From: william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>
>> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 11:00:51 +0100
>> To: Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu <mailto:Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>
>> CC: ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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 <mailto:ncuc-ec-bounces at lists.ncuc.org> <ncuc-ec-bounces at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:ncuc-ec-bounces at lists.ncuc.org>> per conto di William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20150313/8091169d/attachment.html>