[CCWG-ACCT] LA F2F support

Thomas Rickert rickert at anwaelte.de
Tue Sep 15 13:12:11 UTC 2015


All,
as announced during the call earlier today, there is additional funding for 5 persons.

We will proceed as discussed and leave the allocation to the chartering organizations.

Thomas

> Am 15.09.2015 um 10:05 schrieb Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na>:
> 
> 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     ;____/
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150915/403a510e/signature.asc>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list