[NCUC-EC] Review of CROPP proposals

Thu Apr 7 04:53:18 CEST 2016

Hi Farzaneh,

we have to make decision by this Saturday (I thought I said that already).
for Tatiana, she already paid her travel, we don't need to give her CROPP
slot but support partly or fully with NCUC funding instead.

Best,

Rafik

2016-04-07 11:49 GMT+09:00 farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>:

> 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/20160407/0b042222/attachment.html>