Adam,
I applied myself more than two years ago to the fellowship program
many times and got it finally when it is was not needed anymore, I
didn' say that is not good program, but implicitly something to be
improved. well Dakar selection looks good , maybe changes happen last
times, but I still think that must be improved.
yes NCSG members meet with the fellows, I think that Mary made
presentation last time in Dakar.
Best,
Rafik
>
> Rafik, simply not correct. Read the Fellowship page <http://www.icann.org/en/fellowships/
> >, in particular take a look at the Dakar Fellows. It's a good
> programme, do NCSG members meet with the Fellows?
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>> there were several recommendations from the OSC CSG WT (sorry for
>> the acronym) where Debbie and me participated, regarding toolkit
>> AN outreach effort. the toolkit is overdue and should help for
>> administrative, secretariat stuff. Outreach effort is still at the
>> beginning stage and we have motion at gnso council about the
>> outreach taskforce. for those we need to push for implementing the
>> recommendations. they are already over-over due.
>> I think the proposal is mostly about travel funding and the number
>> looked familiar (found here <http://www.icann.org/en/financials/so-ac-sg-requests-summary-fy12-09aug11-en.pdf
>> >http://www.icann.org/en/financials/so-ac-sg-requests-summary-fy12-09aug11-en.pdf
>> , I couldn't unfortunately find the document with the all
>> requests, it is quite instructing...) for me as some icann
>> structures asked the same amount for different projects.
>>
>> @Bill and yes it is peanuts if you compare to what other request ,
>> but addition all these peanuts and it will be somehow caviar :D
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> On Nov 16, 2011, at 6:50 AM, Joy Liddicoat wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all I support this idea in principle, particularly to support
>>> sustainable engagement or outreach in developing countries. I
>>> would rather see domain name fee registration funds devolved back
>>> to these kinds of engagement activities with NCSG input into their
>>> application for specific sector-supporting activities. In the
>>> draft proposal itself, given the rationale for the proposal in the
>>> first couple of pages, I was not expecting to see a focus on
>>> secretariat and administrative related activities. Iąd prefer to
>>> see more focus in the proposed categories of support on capacity
>>> building and network development (whether through fellowships or
>>> other). Like Amr, Iąd also be interested in how the 25k figure was
>>> derived.
>>> Joy
>>>
>>>
>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [<mailto:[log in to unmask]>mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>> ] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
>>> Sent: Wednesday, 16 November 2011 3:19 a.m.
>>> To: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Fwd: Initial Draft Proposal regarding standard Project
>>> Funding to Constituencies/SGs
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> There is a draft proposal from the CSG regarding providing
>>> standard project funding to the GNSO constituencies and
>>> stakeholder groups (see attached). I'd be very curious to hear
>>> thoughts of the membership as whether we should support this
>>> proposal and especially if you have any suggestions for amending
>>> the proposal.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> Robin
>>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Marilyn Cade <<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>>> >
>>> Date: November 13, 2011 6:36:35 PM PST
>>> To: Steve Metalitz <<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]>, Chris at
>>> Andalucia <<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]>, Tony
>>> Holmes <<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>>> >, Matt Serlin <<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>>> >, Mason Cole <<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]>,
>>> David Maher <<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]>, Konstantine
>>> Komaitis
>>> <<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]>, Amber
>>> Sterling <<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]>
>>> Cc: Robin Gross <<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]>,
>>> "bc-secretariat @icann" <<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>>> >
>>> Subject: Initial Draft Proposal regarding standard Project Funding
>>> to Constituencies/SGs
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I mentioned to some of you that the BC submitted a proposal last
>>> year that was not funded, but that we thought it useful to share
>>> with you, and seek your support for a version of a standard
>>> support project that can be self administered at the Constituency
>>> level [in the case of the Ry and RR, that would be SG level]. We
>>> proposed $20,000 in 2012, and you will see that we have increased
>>> it to $25,000 in 2013.
>>>
>>> We have specific activities in mind, and listed those. They may
>>> not be inclusive of what your entity would want to seek funding
>>> for. In our case, we primarily want to do recruitment, and we
>>> would be able to support our part time secretariat/travel, and our
>>> ongoing interest in developing some materials.
>>>
>>> You may have other items that you would like to see in the list,
>>> and we did not mean to make it exclusive.
>>>
>>> We would welcome your views, including if you do not want to join
>>> in any further discussion. Each constituency would still have to
>>> submit their own budget request and each will be approved
>>> individually, without any dependencies. What we are proposing is a
>>> jointly developed endorsement of such an approach. This certainly
>>> isn't required by the budget process, however.
>>>
>>> As you all know, when the GNSO improvements plan was approved by
>>> the Board, certain unfunded mandates including maintaining a
>>> website, archiving records, and certain other activities were
>>> mandated for constituencies/SGs but without any consideration of
>>> how we developed resources. I gathered that the staff and Board
>>> may have had some irrational enthusiam that the ToolKit would
>>> magically solve all such needs. It is useful, but not
>>> encompassing. And, ICANN's timeline for completing it has been
>>> extremely slow. The GNSO website improvements themselves are
>>> still pending, which has made us reluctant to move our website
>>> itself to ICANN. However, this proposal is about different
>>> services than the ToolKit provides, as you will see.
>>>
>>> I hope you find this useful to consider, and welcome any
>>> suggestions, or thoughts.
>>>
>>> As noted, I have shared the draft with the CFO, but only as a
>>> concept paper. I have not indicated whether others will join in
>>> endorsing or improving it, so don't feel that you are at this
>>> point committed to supporting the concept. You are not, but we
>>> would welcome collaborating, if that makes sense to you.
>>>
>>> If any of you would like to have a phone discussion, we can
>>> arrange that as well.
>>> I copied Benedetta Rossi, the BC's Secretariat, who would arrange
>>> any such call.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Marilyn Cade
>>> Chris Chaplow
|
