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