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 --
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@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
--
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi Seun
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?
Those are pertinent and legitimate questions. If I may turn them around, what criteria in addition to these will SO/AC leadership use to verify evaluate travel support applications?
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.
Also a constructive suggestion. I would only add that additional travel slots should not be created specifically to populate CCWG ranks so late in the day - this is an open group and applications should be evaluated on the basis of need and participation from existing participants. Arun
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 15 Sep 2015 08:20, "Arun Sukumar" <arun.sukumar@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
--
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- - @arunmsukumar <http://www.twitter.com/arunmsukumar> Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance <http://www.ccgdelhi.org> National Law University, New Delhi Ph: +91-9871943272
Dear Co-Chairs, can you please advise the two ALAC participants who the ALAC leadership is, so they can take it up with them? Preferably off line. el On 2015-09-15 09:45, Arun Sukumar wrote:
Hi Seun
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?
Those are pertinent and legitimate questions. If I may turn them around, what criteria in addition to these will SO/AC leadership use to verify evaluate travel support applications?
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.
Also a constructive suggestion. I would only add that additional travel slots should not be created specifically to populate CCWG ranks so late in the day - this is an open group and applications should be evaluated on the basis of need and participation from existing participants.
Arun
[...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
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@nludelhi.ac.in <mailto:arun.sukumar@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@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
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@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@nludelhi.ac.in <mailto:arun.sukumar@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@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 This wise, in my view. And we should keep it like this in the future even if more funding became available. el On 2015-09-15 15:12, Thomas Rickert wrote:
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 [...]
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQIVAwUBVfgcmpcFHaN5RT+rAQI8vQ/+NV2QMSiwlkCJdxm3YEqx9d2UL4QzCvkd wZvifmqCLMkAYbWWJQbslXqIkh+EArqhNpaFlKmHnO5qx5d69Txxl6yzA5viJvXn MJM6ko7Rd/XbcPawt02hf1Y0Qs1cxIOsyah7BuzCUoE/6oAmbmNHlI9NX9CKveVS vYIlvO4WCnfdizMTWiVC5HepKGsJBB5gaoBVQa/lEqkCD6BQ6ALIlWr8yHeCbJaU TDzzLVsG3Yc0IYaI9JAG55ZxPrtFgzKjpEzN+yGG5iuUKX/lf3tU5q/VbgBKIT6u HZB0Vg7PCetoxRVsQJtWstvFR7ynfKZRqdtxeJ3W+VsJrpPM/vfMZ56y0m59DlWe JZ7wR7xAzDslHw/CFaEXFwkovHLHN5i+cZiX576UAbqZOjnlVws8IMJRLsWk+As4 hornMKIWYa7d2eBjCC3gHaa+C5tdtHvbN1E7mC5IKpnVFSl776KW2F9edFVaSRp0 3l4a7Sk+Hd3WpYqDioj9+KqTn/K7v6PdHZdLd4dKsDR5sHTGCR3XUSzlSbkhBWH/ GN28XE6Zlb9JeZHSFXZ/3SgSWdYbHMk5D1/xDI/FC+x3cx5PwlE5HlVkVIUEEs8R ulc9yW4j4ogZ0/Hnew64f4rwMg8lRIMmg90FeMmUJUc87GP/iQrYsVrsDJzZFERk MhjA1gyqqpM= =oWjS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
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@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert Sent: 15 September 2015 14:12 To: el@lisse.NA Cc: directors@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@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@nludelhi.ac.in <mailto:arun.sukumar@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@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Seun and others, The one problem is see is that SOs and ACs would ordinarily look for representativeness. I see multiple submissions both to the ICG proposal and the CCWG proposal from people whose opinions are very divergent from the SOs or ACs they are part of or would be part of if they were part of an AC/SO. Hence, what is as necessary is that SOs and ACs look for *diversity* of opinions and not just for agreement with the stated position of that SO/AC. Regards, Pranesh Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> [2015-09-15 08:32:28 +0100]:
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@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
--
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283 sip:pranesh@ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh@cis-india.org https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
Dear Co-Chairs, can we please create another mailing list where this logorrhea ("I want to have funding") can be ventilated? el On 2015-09-15 13:16, Pranesh Prakash wrote:
Dear Seun and others, The one problem is see is that SOs and ACs would ordinarily look for representativeness.
I see multiple submissions both to the ICG proposal and the CCWG proposal from people whose opinions are very divergent from the SOs or ACs they are part of or would be part of if they were part of an AC/SO.
Hence, what is as necessary is that SOs and ACs look for *diversity* of opinions and not just for agreement with the stated position of that SO/AC.
Regards, Pranesh [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
participants (6)
-
Arun Sukumar -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Phil Buckingham -
Pranesh Prakash -
Seun Ojedeji -
Thomas Rickert