[NCUC-EC] Review of CROPP proposals

Thu Apr 7 04:49:28 CEST 2016

Thanks Milton.

I think you missed considering Ayden's proposal. We need to decide on
Tatiana and Karel's requests urgently as the meetings are gonna be held
this month.

Others please give us your opinion now. Joao, please give us your opinion
on Karel's proposal. it's your region.

Rafik, shall we have a deadline for deciding on  at least for the ones that
will be too late to allocate?

Best

Farzaneh

On 6 April 2016 at 18:17, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:

> I am sorry, I forgot to include North America in my assessment.
>
>
>
> Kathy Kleiman proposed to go to an INTA meeting.
>
> I am under the impression that CROPP funding is for outreach, and what
> Kathy proposes seems more like competitive intelligence than
> constituency-building – one would not expect an INTA meeting to be ripe
> recruiting grounds for us. However, if CROPP has more general objectives,
> it might be suitable. In general I am not favorably inclined to this
> proposal.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* NCUC-EC [mailto:ncuc-ec-bounces at lists.ncuc.org] *On Behalf Of *Mueller,
> Milton L
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 6, 2016 12:03 PM
> *To:* Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>
> *Cc:* ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org
> *Subject:* Re: [NCUC-EC] Review of CROPP proposals
>
>
>
> Here are my assessments of the CROPP proposals
>
>
>
> AFRICA
>
> James provides a broad and rather vague plan that sounds like general
> support for his organization.
>
> Sonigitu proposes to go to an open government event that is not focused on
> the Internet at all. Not a good place for NCUC outreach.
>
> Remmy, APC, Benjamin and Farrel all propose to go to the African Internet
> Summit.
>
> I believe that all but the APC proposals are weak and involve little more
> than us supporting their week-long travel there. Some would be quite
> expensive ($2000)
>
> APC says they will run a panel session which they say is focused on NCUC
> promotion (hopefully it will do that, and not just promote APC membership).
>
> I would go with APC but extract some commitment to promote NCUC.
>
>
>
> EUROPE
>
> Tatiana proposes a short, inexpensive trip to an Eastern European IGF. As
> a panel convenor she would be in a good position to highlight NCUC.
>
> Drake proposes an unbudgeted level of support for his attendance at
> EuroDIG in Brussels, to present his WEF-supported fragmentation paper.
>
> My view is that the EE event is better for new outreach. I sense that
> Drake will go to EuroDIG anyway. I would go with the TT proposal.
>
>
>
> LAC
>
> Renata is seeking support to go to the OECD Ministerial and participate in
> CSISAC. Renata is a reliable agent of NCUC and proposes to use open mic at
> the CSISAC forum.
>
> Karel proposes a presence at CIVICUS meeting. The CIVICUS meeting seems
> newer ground for recruiting to me but also tougher because it is not
> focused on internet issues. It is not clear from Karel’s proposal whether
> he has a dedicated session for NCUC or ICANN but I would guess not after
> looking at the program. I do not know Karel at all and thus cannot assess
> his effectiveness in the environment.
>
> Both of these are important and good venues. I lean slightly toward the
> Karel proposal if others can vouch for him.
>
>
>
> ASIA PACIFIC
>
> Eranga proposes a school in Sri Lanka on Internet Governance.
>
> Vidushi and Aarthi propose participation on panels at the AP Region IGF in
> Taiwan. Both of them are very good diplomats for NCUC but they would be
> participating ion panels that are already heavily populated with NCUC
> people (Rafik, Monika, Arun, Pranesh)
>
> Soumya has a very unclear and broad plan to set up some kind of
> organizational structure for India – I do not think this idea is even
> eligible for CROPP support
>
> Of these proposals I favor the Sri Lanka plan. But I do not known anything
> about Eranga’s capabilities.
>
> If there are questions about her ability to deliver, I would favor
> supporting Aarthi’s travel to APrIGF. The only reason is that Vidushi’s
> organization, CIS, is already represented there via Pranesh.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* NCUC-EC [mailto:ncuc-ec-bounces at lists.ncuc.org
> <ncuc-ec-bounces at lists.ncuc.org>] *On Behalf Of *Rafik Dammak
> *Sent:* Monday, April 4, 2016 10:46 PM
> *To:* farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org
> *Subject:* Re: [NCUC-EC] Review of CROPP proposals
>
>
>
> Hi Farzaneh,
>
>
>
> thanks for the selections and comments.
>
> while waiting for other choices, I may respond to some questions:
>
> - CSISAC event (http://csisac.org/events/cancun16/) during the OECD
> ministerial doesn't happen in yearly basis and involve many organizations
> that we don't necessarily see in usual IG spaces
> http://csisac.org/members.php  (disclaimer I was in the CSISAC steering
> committee and I can check for logistics information)
> - I am not familiar with CIVICUS but it sounds a big event too, looks
> something close to World Summit Forum too. new space for us
>
> - checking with Staff, we can allocate slots for July using this year
> allocation but it would make sense to use FY17 slots instead  (we should
> start the call at early stage )
>
> - definitely we should work closely with the recipients regarding their
> outreach efforts and see how we can amplify them by promotion, material etc
> . we should use the learnt lesson from CPDP.
>
> - as suggested we can support with some limit using NCUC funding.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Rafik
>
>
>
>
>
> 2016-04-05 11:28 GMT+09:00 farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>:
>
> Hi Rafik,
>
>
>
> Below is my suggestion
>
>
>
>
>
> *Africa*: I can see that Anriette, Benjamin, Farrel, James and  Remmy
> have applied for the same conference, Africa Internet Summit. As to Farrel,
> I think the proposal is not convincing enough.He needs more time to get
> acquainted with us and engage with working groups, then do outreach. As to
> other proposals for AIS, I like the proposals and it is difficult to
> decide. But it seems like Anriette has a session planned. I would very much
> like to support  Benjamin and Remmy  to do outreach and get support from
> NCUC.James needs some more time to become more active at NCUC. But I think
> Anriette proposal is more suitable for CROPP and is more NCUC focussed.
>
> As to Sogintu's proposal: I doubt that in Open Gov Partnership conferences
> there is much room for civil society outreach. I don't have much knowledge
> about the event but I think compared to AIS , it has less chances.
>
> *Suggestion:*  I suggest to accept Anriette's proposal. I would like to
> follow up with Benjamin and others to discuss how they can become more
> involved and which other meetings are good to participate at. I also invite
> Grace to reach out to these individuals and give them advice.
>
>
>
>
>
> *LAC: * I like both of the proposals done by Karel and Renata. It seems
> like we already have some involvement with CSISAC Forum & OECD
> Ministerial Conference and I see more opportunity at CIVICUS ( proposed by
> Karel). Karel proposal concerns me as he doesnt have any concrete plan or
> a session about NCUC.
>
>
>
> *Suggestion:* I suggest to accept Karel's proposal if the timing is ok
> and if his strategy can be more convincing.
>
>
>
> *Asia Pacific:  *Vidushi and Aarti's proposals for AprIGF should be
> considered for the next round of CROPP because it is going to be held in
> July.  I think Soumya's proposal is interesting but not suitable for this
> CROPP. we should talk to her more about how the project can be implemented
> through other means or in other CROPP projects. Same applies for Sri Lanka
> School for Int gov.
>
>
>
> *Suggestion:* not able to allocate in this round. will consider for the
> next round of CROPP.
>
>
>
>
>
> *North America: *Kathy's proposal for INTA is interesting but I don't see
> how she can do outreach and get members for NCUC at INTA. It seems like if
> she attends the conference we will gain good information about the trade
> mark actors.
>
> *Suggestion:* If possible we should allocate NCUC funding to Kathy if not
> then Kathy's proposal needs to be more convincing as to how she will
> recruit members for NCUC.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Europe: *As to Bill's proposal for CROPP to EuroDIG I have some
> concerns: first as he states in his own email, CROPP has been used for
> EuroDIG last year for attendance of three members. second, we have already
> done outreach in Brussels in January.
>
>
>
> Ayden's proposal sounds promising, we have not done outreach at WSIS
> before and he has a session which he can use as a space for outreach and
> promoting NCUC. I support his application.
>
>
>
> Tatiana's proposal is a good opportunity for outreach as well.
>
>
>
> *Suggestion: *Approve Ayden's request and support Tatiana with travel
> support.
>
>
>
>
>
> So my suggestions: 1. Africa: Anriette's proposal.  2. LAC: Karel's
> proposal 3. North America: Kathy Kleiman ( if it can be more convincing) 4.
> Ayden at WSIS ( please note that we have allocated CROPP to Europe before
> if you see any other convincing proposal then it should be prioritized.)
>
>
>
>
>
> Travel Support: 1. Tatiana for SEEDIG.
>
>
>
> If others do not agree with me on the choice related to Africa, I also
> think Remmy and Benjamin's proposals were of good quality.
>
>
>
> As for LAC, if allocation is not possible to be made to Karel I am
> thinking perhaps Renata should go to the ministerial meeting. But I don't
> have much knowledge about OECD ministerial, so any advice from other EC
> members is greatly appreciated.
>
>
>
>
>
> Best
>
>
>
> Farzaneh
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 4 April 2016 at 12:05, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> please find attached the proposals we got for the CROPP call. we got 4
> slots to allocate. I will also double check if I am not missing any request.
>
>
>
> we have to make decision quickly because some of the events proposed are
> quite close. I will check anyway about the deadline and the feasibility.
>
>
>
> for some proposals, we may use NCUC funding if advised and if the cost is
> not prohibitive and if we think that is worthy event to do outreach.
>
>
>
> please review carefully the proposals and send your selection lists.
> several members are applying for the same conference so we may select only
> 1 individual for that. one request is beyond CROPP remit but is listed for
> tracking purpose. we want to go to some  specific regions but not
> necessarily a hardcoded requirement.
>
>
>
> I would like to receive your selection by this friday then we can decide
> the top 4 and make decision.
>
>
>
> after we will do some evaluation of this experiment and see how we can
> improve it.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Rafik
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCUC-EC mailing list
> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Farzaneh
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCUC-EC mailing list
> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>
>

-- 
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20160407/69fe454f/attachment.html>