[CCWG-ACCT] LA F2F support

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

Dear Co-Chairs,

It is not puzzling at all.  There is no "additional" funding.

Those individuals who have been appointed by the chartering
organizations as "members" and the liaisons and experts (have)
received) funding.

The other individuals participating are "participants" and can post
to the list or "observers" and only read the list (though that is a
choice of the individual concerned).

If a "member" can't make it (s)he can nominate a "participant" from
the same (chartering) organization and if approved by the Chair of
the (chartering) organization the alternate can receive the
(original "member's" funding.

ICANN per se, or the Co-Chairs of the CCWG Accountability, have
nothing to say in this matter.

This has been so since the CCWG was chartered, all have known about
it since and at this late stage I can see no reason why it should
change.

And most certainly not why the number of contributions should play
ANY role WHATSOEVER.


So, find out if any of the ALAC "members" can't make it, and if so
get them to nominate you, then be approved by ALAC leadership (I
don't know about the ALAC processes) and you will then receive
funding.

Disclosure: I am a "member" appointed by the CCNSO.

More Disclosure: I work for a living and this is costing me an
enormous amount of time (which translates directly into patient care
and hence income (though I can compensate by putting in more
hours)).


el

On 2015-09-15 09:32, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> Hi Arun,
> 
> I think the main puzzle is how exactly will ICANN/Co-Chairs
> apportion funding to participants.  What determines those who
> "constructively" contributes?  Is it by leading the working
> parties, by number of mails written?  Or by number of meetings
> attended?  Or as you put it those who make public comments?
> 
> If participants will be funded (which I am actually in support
> of), then perhaps doubling the travel slots for each SO/AC and
> letting them determine which of their participants attend is the
> better option at ensuring balance.
> 
> In your case Arun, I expect you to indicate your interest within
> NCUC. I think this will be the closest transparent approach
> possible.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> 
> On 15 Sep 2015 08:20, "Arun Sukumar" <arun.sukumar at nludelhi.ac.in
> <mailto:arun.sukumar at nludelhi.ac.in>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi, I couldn't sneak in this question in time before the last
>     call ended, but:
> 
>     Why are additional travel support requests for LA being routed
>     through SO/AC leadership?  Chartering organisations have had
>     an opportunity to nominate fully funded members.  If travel
>     support requests are not many in number, surely they can be
>     evaluated in a transparent manner by CCWG co-chairs, with
>     results circulated in the working group mailing list?
> 
>     I'm not entirely sure if handing it over to So/AC leadership
>     -- who may or may not have tracked accountability discussions
>     down to this crucial meeting -- is the most appropriate way to
>     get diversity in perspectives.  It is potentially unfair to
>     those who are not affiliated to them, but active participants
>     nevertheless.
> 
>     The number of comments in the second period received from
>     organisations that are not affiliated to So/ACs is indicative
>     of active participation outside.
> 
>     disclosure: i am interested in receiving additional travel
>     support, and affiliated to NCUC
> 
>     Best,
>     Arun
[...]
-- 
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse  \        / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
el at lisse.NA            / *     |   Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
PO Box 8421             \     /
Bachbrecht, Namibia     ;____/