>hello, > >there is fellowship program already, the problem >as mentioned by Amr is the selection, 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 >ask to add more member in the selection >committee which is currently small). 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. I¹d prefer to see more focus in the >>proposed categories of support on capacity >>building and network development (whether >>through fellowships or other). Like Amr, I¹d >>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