[NCUC-EC] ICANN 77 Funded Traveler slots

Fri Feb 10 13:09:45 CET 2023

Dear Olga,
Thank you for the update. I am super sorry to know this.

I think at this point we probably have to reach out to the mailing list to
request a replacement before Monday.

Or what does the EC recommend?

Kind regards,
Benjamin

On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 2:09 PM Olga Kyryliuk <olga_kyryliuk at ukr.net> wrote:

> Hi All!
>
> As I said before and to confirm - I won’t be able to travel to ICANN 77 in
> Washington. Feel free to use my slot this time.
>
> Best,
> Olga
>
>
> * 9 лютого 2023 р. о 15:59:58,від "Cláudio Lucena" <claudiokilla at gmail.com
> <claudiokilla at gmail.com>>: *
>
> Dear ECs,
>
> As for ICANN77, I am available to attend the meeting and with dates
> already blocked, but I have the impression that the CROP funding that I am
> receiving for ICANN76 prevents me from applying again. And, in any case,
> I'll just follow and confirm the collective decision if the allocation of
> the EC slots have already been discussed and aligned in meetings prior to
> my appointment. I'll then either try to secure another source of funding or
> attend remotely.
>
> I believe all MIli's suggestions of criteria for eventual extra slots make
> a very good process of promoting fair opportunities. I'll just point out
> that the shortlisting task will probably make us go back to another round
> of defining objective criteria for the list, although it's definitely
> useful, productive and generates participation incentive. Finally, a
> concern I share with Benjamin, is that we should make sure that we are
> neither expanding nor narrowing the guidelines which are already set out in
> the Bylaws and existing travel policies.
>
> best,
> Cláudio
>
> --
> Cláudio S. de Lucena Neto
>
> Head of the International Office
>
> Professor of Law, Center for Legal Studies
>
> Paraíba State University (UEPB), Brazil
>
> *
>
> Membro do Conselho Nacional de Proteção de Dados Pessoais e da Privacidade
> (CNPDP)
>
> Autoridade Nacional de Proteção de Dados (ANDP)
>
> *
>
> Researcher, Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
>
> Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior de Portugal
>
> *
>
> PhD Candidate, Research Centre for the Future of Law
>
> Católica Global School of Law, Universidade Católica Portuguesa
>
> LinkedIn: https://br.linkedin.com/pub/cláudio-lucena/22/7a8/822
>
> Universidade Estadual da Paraíba
>
> www.uepb.edu.br
> <https://br.linkedin.com/pub/cl%C3%A1udio-lucena/22/7a8/822>
>
> Centro de Ciências Jurídicas - Campus I
>
> Departamento de Direito Privado
>
> Rua Coronel Salvino de Figueiredo, 157
>
> CEP 58.400-253
>
> Campina Grande - PB - Brasil
>
> Fone/Fax: *55 83 3310 9753
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
>
> This message, as well as any attached document, may contain information
> that is confidential and privileged and is intended only for the use of the
> addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this email
> or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of
> this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
> Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email by
> mistake.
>
>
>
> Em qua., 8 de fev. de 2023 às 12:29, h i <hfaiedh.ines2 at gmail.com>
> escreveu:
>
>
> Regarding the roster, i really like the idea but suggest this is done
> while still sticking to the open call for transparency and tracability
> matters.
>
> Having this roster, we can  send them reminders to apply if they are not
> for example aware of the calls for applications.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2023, 14:17 Mili Semlani <milisemlani at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Benji
>   We dont have to change any bylaws. We ONLY have to agree up on some
> basic guidelines and processes for us to follow. Which is something we can
> propose and gather consensus between the 6 of us on this email thread
> itself.
>
> here are my 2 cents to the proposal
>
> *1. For the extra slots*
> - To be used for the community only. But instead of an open call, we put
> together a shortlist of the top 3 most active participants we have observed
> in the last 6 months.
> - We should use the funding to fly in someone from the furthest distance
> possible to maximise the use of the fund and someone from a nearer time
> zone can still virtually manage the timezone and attend the meeting
> virtually
> - It should not go to anyone who has received CROP, or any other funding
> from NCUC/SG in the last 6 months to give a chance to people who haven't
> attended in person
>
> *2. For the extra slots*
> - In addition to the policy here
> https://www.ncuc.org/get-involved/travel-policy/, we should also buffer
> for contingencies eg: If the funded member is unable to go (after
> confirmation due to unforeseen circumstances like health, visa or securing
> any other kind of funding) then, such slots should be opened back to the
> remaining EC members (including the Chair's slot)
> - In doing so, the EC member furthest away from the destination of the
> meeting should be given the first preference again to maximise the use of
> the fund and someone from a nearer time zone can still virtually manage the
> timezone and attend the meeting virtually
>
> *Feel free to add any more guidelines. And denote if you agree or disagree
> with these.*
> --
> With gratitude
> *Mili Semlani*
> Community specialist
> Instagram <https://www.instagram.com/theuntraveller/> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/milisemlani/>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 at 18:31, Benjamin Akinmoyeje <benakin at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Mili & ECs,
>
> Your recommendations are greatly appreciated. However are they
> achievable within the timeframe?
>
> I agree we should create the process, but there are guidelines in the
> Bylaws on how to change the process. Someone has to develop the draft and
> that should be happening already.
>
> The process of changing or creating a guideline may be too late for these
> selections.
>
> I agreed with your suggestions and I only pointed you to the existing
> travel policy.
>
> All I expect now is for us to agree on who are the two ECs going to
> ICANN77 by default, and my suggestion is
> Olga and Ines - with clear expectations or TOR developed for both
> ICANN-supported funded travel slots.
>
> In the case of the NCSG  travel slot one, we should consider another NCUC
> EC - and my immediate suggestion here will be Claudio since he just only
> got the CROP and hopefully, he can represent the NCSG appointee during the
> NCSG session (we develop clear expectations or TOR). If not we throw the
> slot open to the membership.
>
> Hence subsequent travel slot selections can follow as you have
> recommended... This is my take at this moment.
>
>
> Kind regards,
> Benjamin
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCUC-EC mailing list
> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCUC-EC mailing listNCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.orghttps://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCUC-EC mailing list
> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
> https://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/20230210/2281c1b3/attachment-0001.htm>