[CCWG-ACCT] LA F2F support

[Phil Buckingham]

Thomas,

Thanks. As a mere participant I would interested in being approached by AC/
SOs to discuss partial / full funding to attend the LA F2F. I attended the
Paris F2F meeting at my own expense.

Thanks again. 

Phil Buckingham

-----Original Message-----
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
Thomas Rickert
Sent: 15 September 2015 14:12
To: el at lisse.NA
Cc: directors at omadhina.net; Accountability Cross Community
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] LA F2F support

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