>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.
er... no, you said "it is disguised way to fund
some GAC rep and people from ccTLD to attend the
meeting with the rest of few seats for
regulators, academic etc but nothing for civil
society per se, it will be important to push for
fair selection there"
And that's not correct.
Selection criteria have always been public and
have evolved as Global Partnerships' focus
evolved (and as relations with other groups in
ICANN changed and other participation support
programs emerged). Now includes more people
interested in the policy SO and AC areas. It's a
good program.
>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.
Good to hear. The Fellows from civil society and
academia should be aware of the NCSG and issues
we think important, hopefully they'll join.
Adam
>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
|
