[NCUC-EC] FW: Proposal for travel support for trip to the INternational working group on data protection in telecommunications in Oslo April 2016

Thu Feb 18 12:50:47 CET 2016

Hi,

I am not seeing any reaction nor objection to this. can I assume that we
are agreeing to give Stephanie the 600$ support?
we will confirm this at our tomorrow confcall.

Best,

Rafik

2016-02-15 8:34 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:

> Hi,
>
> looking forward to hear from other EC members.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
> 2016-02-12 10:29 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>
>> Hi Farazneh,
>>
>> 2016-02-12 10:17 GMT+09:00 farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Hi Rafik,
>>>
>>> OK, I now kind of understand. I don't disagree,   but I  still think
>>> Milton's suggestions to ask her for  [a report to the EC about new
>>> membership possibilities or opportunities/strategies for increasing our
>>> policy influence on this issue within ICANN] should be followed. More in
>>> spirit of transparency, I  think we should:
>>>
>>
>> report is mandatory for any travel support , I don't think I dropped that
>> requirements :)
>>
>>>
>>> inform our members about such opportunities ( that there is a limited
>>> budget for such requests)
>>>
>>
>> yes sure, we should discuss if we should have some specific budget for
>> that. I am not really fan of ad-hoc approach, we are flexible but not
>> reckless
>>
>>>
>>> announce that Stephanie has received such travel support and the
>>> conference she is going to .
>>>
>>
>> yes
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12 February 2016 at 02:01, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Farzaneh,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> this request is not an for outreach to get new members  but to bring
>>>> privacy experts and Data Protection Authority to get involved in the
>>>> process and even intervene since they have the legitimacy to do so. NCUC
>>>> had one success in term of lobbying when our outreach and contacts get the
>>>> EU Article29 WG to send the letter to the board in 2013 about the RAA
>>>> provisions (the board still trying to dodge and not responding clearly to
>>>> that letter)
>>>>
>>>> Stephanie is going to that meeting to inform DPA about what is
>>>> happening, since we have newly started RDS process and we need all possible
>>>> allies to come. so the purpose fall under "opportunities/strategies
>>>> for increasing our policy influence on this issue within ICANN". we
>>>> will follow-up with her closely to make this effective and beneficial for
>>>> NCUC.
>>>>
>>>> the allocation will come from NCUC budget , we exceptionally allocate
>>>> small amount when it is worthy to do so. that is why we need to work more
>>>> in term of fund-seeking and explore possible areas for that.
>>>>
>>>> yes, in general we have the expectation that those supported by CROPP
>>>> for example to mention NCUC, get contacts and do a serious outreach. we are
>>>> not funding people to their own stuff, we don't have such luxury. that is
>>>> quite clear.
>>>>
>>>> with comments I see in different discussions and threads with some
>>>> level of confusion, I do see the need for a clear strategy, roadmap
>>>> ,strategy listing goals and objectives so we can align them with the action
>>>> we are doing. for example "influencing PDP regarding privacy" can be
>>>> translated  into actions like capacity building for newcomers to get
>>>> involved in the process, funding NC experts to attend meeting, producing a
>>>> position paper about whois issue, outreach to DPA and other related
>>>> parties. I will be happy to work on that.
>>>>
>>>> Such roadmap will also help us in term of selections, travel awarding,
>>>> appointments but also expectations from of what we are doing.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>>
>>>> 2016-02-12 4:22 GMT+09:00 farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>> Which budget are we going to use to allocate funding to Stephanie?  I
>>>>> agree with Rafik that it should be outcome oriented. As well as a blogpost
>>>>> as Milton suggested I think a report to"the EC about new membership
>>>>> possibilities" or "opportunities/strategies for increasing our policy
>>>>> influence on this issue within ICANN", would be nice. But I would like to
>>>>> see a plan from Stephanie on how she is going to raise awareness about our
>>>>> work and who she potentially has in mind to approach and discuss NCUC with.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sometimes participants ( and I dont mean Stephanie in specific here)
>>>>> just go to conferences with no mention of NCUC - I think if they are funded
>>>>> by us they have an obligation to at least talk about NCUC  and our work and
>>>>> show us results. ( whatever that maybe)
>>>>>
>>>>> If this is not funding that requires her to do outreach for NCUC, then
>>>>> what is the objective of funding her travel?
>>>>>
>>>>> I also am skeptical about the effectiveness of participation at the
>>>>> same conference every year which most of the times has the same group of
>>>>> participants . I also don't know what the objective is ....
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11 February 2016 at 19:55, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Back to this, is there any objection to this decision: 600$ to attend
>>>>>> privacy conference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>> On Jan 19, 2016 10:43 AM, "PeterGreen" <
>>>>>> seekcommunications at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Rafik, Milton, EC members,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I recall that it was in last April that Stephanie attened the same
>>>>>>> meeting which was held in Seoul. So it would make it a consecutive and
>>>>>>> productive conduct to attend this year's meeting.
>>>>>>> I support to alloate $600 for Stephanie.
>>>>>>> Thanks very much.
>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>>>> Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 10:13:48 +0900
>>>>>>> To: milton at gatech.edu
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCUC-EC] FW: Proposal for travel support for trip to
>>>>>>> the INternational working group on data protection in telecommunications in
>>>>>>> Oslo April 2016
>>>>>>> CC: ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Milton,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thanks for this.
>>>>>>> yes I do agree that we can agree with giving the support here with
>>>>>>> conditions. we have to be strategical about the support and be
>>>>>>> outcome-oriented. I think that the approach we discussed in our EC call
>>>>>>> (including CROPP slots)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2016-01-18 4:34 GMT+09:00 Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FYI.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To me, this seems like a very cost-effective support. $600 for a
>>>>>>> high profile at an international meeting among data protection
>>>>>>> commissioners. We can attach certain conditions to Stephanie's support,
>>>>>>> such as a blog post or a report to the EC about new membership
>>>>>>> possibilities or opportunities/strategies for increasing our policy
>>>>>>> influence on this issue within ICANN.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --MM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> > From: Stephanie Perrin [mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca]
>>>>>>> > Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 5:44 PM
>>>>>>> > To: rafik.dammak.ncsg at gmail.com; Mueller, Milton L <
>>>>>>> milton at gatech.edu>
>>>>>>> > Subject: Proposal for travel support for trip to the INternational
>>>>>>> working
>>>>>>> > group on data protection in telecommunications in Oslo April 2016
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Dear Executive Committee,
>>>>>>> > This is a proposal/request for travel support to attend the
>>>>>>> meeting of the
>>>>>>> > IWGDPT (aka the Berlin group) in Oslo, April 24-26 2016.  I have
>>>>>>> been asked
>>>>>>> > by the secretariat to write a paper for them on ICANN and privacy,
>>>>>>> and I of
>>>>>>> > course am delighted to do so.  I proposed to them the same deal
>>>>>>> that we
>>>>>>> > were able to arrange to cover my travel to Korea last April, and
>>>>>>> they have
>>>>>>> > agreed to cover my airfare, tentatively priced at around $860
>>>>>>> Canadian.  If
>>>>>>> > NCUC could cover my hotel, namely 3-4 nights at the conference
>>>>>>> hotel, I will
>>>>>>> > be able to attend.  Total costs should be around 588. for the
>>>>>>> hotel, so once
>>>>>>> > again NCUC got the lesser of the two expenses.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > I attach the invitation letter with details of the meeting, and
>>>>>>> the registration
>>>>>>> > information for the hotel.  Since they have negotiated a special
>>>>>>> rate of 1295
>>>>>>> > Krone or $146.72 US , and Oslo is notoriously expensive, I would
>>>>>>> propose to
>>>>>>> > stay at that hotel where I can also lobby folks if the occasion
>>>>>>> arises.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Kind regards Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> NCUC-EC mailing list
>>>>>>> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ NCUC-EC mailing list
>>>>>>> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> NCUC-EC mailing list
>>>>>> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
>>>>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Farzaneh
>>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20160218/dcff50c6/attachment.html>