[NCUC-EC] NCUC Procedures Rules EC Comment Period

Wed Apr 12 21:15:32 CEST 2017

Anna meant Thursday. It will be on Thursday at 16.00. Our bylaws meeting
will be on Friday.

Farzaneh

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi
>
> Apologies, won't make it on Fri
>
> May have limited email access
>
> Em 12/04/2017 16:07, "hfaiedh ines" <hfaiedh.ines2 at gmail.com> escreveu:
>
>> Friday should be fine for me. I have added my comments to the document
>> too.
>>
>> 2017-04-11 21:25 GMT-04:00 Anna Loup <loupac5556 at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> The call is going to be at 16.00 this Friday. I will email Maryam to
>>> schedule to call for the EC.
>>>
>>> Anna Loup
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <
>>> raquino at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all
>>>>
>>>> Answers inline
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 1:58 PM, farzaneh badii
>>>> <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Farzaneh
>>>> >
>>>> > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <
>>>> raquino at gmail.com>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Hi
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Thank you for this comprehensive document.
>>>> >> I've answered the poll and commented on the doc.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I am confused about the outreach session.
>>>> >> Procedures demand a list of things from the proposer but I haven't
>>>> >> seen dedicated budget for outreach.
>>>> >> How can we demand from the proposer a list of requirements if no
>>>> >> budget or association with NCUC is present?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Since I completed the outreach part and specifically mentioned not to
>>>> > allocate special budget to general outreach, I will explain.
>>>>
>>>> Btw says Farrell Folly all over the doc in huge letters
>>>> Although I understand the contributors are to be acknowledged, perhaps
>>>> this would be better as a last part of the document  (credits)
>>>> As it is a collective work, though, of course the group knows best
>>>>
>>>> > As I said
>>>> > before, it is not a great idea to allocate a set budget to outreach
>>>> > activities because sometimes we get many good requests that we might
>>>> want to
>>>> > fund and sometimes we don't get many. Having a set budget can prevent
>>>> EC to
>>>> > approve things for the best interest of the constituency. What is
>>>> important
>>>> > for EC to consider is regional diversity and the benefit of the
>>>> outreach
>>>> > event. It should be assessed whether the person has received funding
>>>> before,
>>>> > whether the event they are going to do outreach has the type of
>>>> audience
>>>> > that could be potentially NCUC members, if the outreach plan is
>>>> detailed and
>>>> > whether the outreach requester is an active member.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> I agree w/ all this.
>>>> this better detailment is what takes me to the next point - if someone
>>>> doesn't detail (previous or after outreach) what should EC do?
>>>> will get back to this
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > I dont understand your question on how can we demand a list of
>>>> requirements
>>>> > when there is no budget or association.
>>>>
>>>> some outreach are just about a member requesting a speaker or printed
>>>> material - should they follow the same process?
>>>>
>>>> > It is very clear that we consider
>>>> > such requests and if EC decides, it can give the funding to the
>>>> requestor.
>>>> > But what we don't have is a budget allocated specifically to outreach
>>>> for
>>>> > each year. of course if all EC members want to have a specific budget
>>>> and
>>>> > have a detailed outreach policy like that of the travel support, then
>>>> we can
>>>> > do that. I just pointed out that by allocating a strict budget to
>>>> outreach
>>>> > you might limit effective outreach activities. For example, if  we
>>>> need 4000
>>>> > USD for the outreach Africa event this year and we decide to use NCUC
>>>> > budget, and we have a budget cap of 4000 USD for outreach for the
>>>> whole year
>>>> > then our hands will be tight.
>>>> >
>>>> > Moreover, while outreach is great, we also need to have events and
>>>> > activities for in-reach and make our current members active.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> agree w/ all this too
>>>>
>>>> also think inreach is priority and could be paired w/ events for
>>>> training in internet policymaking w/ veterans
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >> Imagine if someone doesn't comply, also what could be the
>>>> consequence?
>>>> >> So I'd take maybe these would be good practices or recommendations
>>>> but
>>>> >> obligatory procedures seems a bit of a reach.
>>>> >> However, as I followed the work of the group as EC only, I understand
>>>> >> this extended reach in scope could be something the members may wish
>>>> >> to discuss.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > If someone does not comply with the requirements and arrange events
>>>> with our
>>>> > affiliation, we send a note to them and tell them to inform NCUC in
>>>> future
>>>> > events or we will contact the event organizers and tell them that the
>>>> > affiliation they had was wrong.
>>>> >
>>>> > We need a process for those who want to do NCUC outreach or use NCUC
>>>> as
>>>> > their affiliation when organizing a session related to NCUC mission.
>>>> These
>>>> > procedures address them.
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>> So getting back to this point
>>>>
>>>> OK if members are going to in touch w/ EC for their planning then they
>>>> have some support to properly picture any association they want to do.
>>>> Members have varied knowledge of NCUC and experience in planning events.
>>>> I just hope some leeway is given when they are, in good will, offering
>>>> spaces to NCUC.
>>>> Better to educate then police people.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Renata
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Best,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Renata
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Anna Loup <loupac5556 at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >> > Hello All,
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > I am sending you the link for the Procedural Rules for commenting.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1b-GyV4FQdIZ8MIWiKVznSsxl
>>>> b-_z7GQCZotf1g_wosk/edit?usp=sharing
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > We will also be having a meeting to go over these rules. As a way
>>>> to
>>>> >> > ensure
>>>> >> > the availability of as many people as possible, please fill out
>>>> this
>>>> >> > Doodle
>>>> >> > poll by Tuesday at  11:59 UTC. Apologies for the short notice/
>>>> short
>>>> >> > timeframe.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > https://doodle.com/poll/ixeah9rcwtgs89tv
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Best,
>>>> >> > Anna Loup
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > _______________________________________________
>>>> >> > 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
>>>
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170412/ae16747d/attachment.html>