From kdrstoll Sun Jan 8 23:56:29 2012 From: kdrstoll (Klaus Stoll) Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2012 22:56:29 +0100 Subject: [FC-NCSG] Thoughts on FC overall and Y13 budget Message-ID: <04624D0C18C949ACA9473FA66EEE0E28@KlausPC> Dear Friends Greetings and I hope you had a good Christmas and start into the next year. As hard as it is I think we need to get going again and on of the things is that we need to get a planning draft for the Y13 funding together. Here are my thoughts, please respond until next Friday if possible so that a draft can be created soonest: 1) I think we have to make clear that the NCSG has a serving and not a policy making function. Basically the FC should be an enabler of the NCSG PC and EC. We need to make this clear that in future the PC and EC should develop their policies and decisions and the FC committee needs to see how they financially underpin these decisions and policies. In the current situation and given the time constraint the FC will have to make some assumptions based on what it thinks the PC and EC want to go but in future we need a process for this. Otherwise the finance committee would be able to bend the wishes of the NCSG members simply by what is financed and what not. 2) From the NCSG charter it is clear that we urgently need to appoint the one representatives from each constituency to the FC and have a election of a FC chair. I think that should be item 1 on the next official FC meeting. 3) Before we can spend any money, we first need to have it. Here the charter again is helpful: a) we can request a limited amount of funding from ICANN directly and the ICANN leadership has indicated more or less clearly what they would like to fund and what not. ( enabling participation and structured outreach). b) the Charter also suggests a voluntary membership fee. I think that might be not such a bad way to go if the right rules are applied. My proposal is: voluntary membership fee of USD 50 for individuals and small organizations,(as defined by the Charter Chapter 2.2.3, (less then 50 employees and less then 500 individual members, less then 10 organizational members), USD 500 mandatory membership fee for ?large organizations?. They can afford it and won?t feel it whilst for us it can make a big difference. c) we should engage with registrars that are making their cash with the selling of domain names to not for profit organizations such as PIR.org and given the new gTLDs coming in their will be more candidates in the future. d) we should create a fundraising campaign and execute it that engages with and requests support from charitable organizations whose Vision/Mission and statues support the area of Internet Governance and not for profit organizations. I think there are a number out there , (like the Ford Foundation), who would support the NCSG?s work if we engage with the in the right way. 4) Now it comes to on what to spend the money, (and that is exactly the discussion that needs to happen in the future in the PC and EC not FC) a)the old but every popular topic of NCSG representatives being able to participate in the ICANN meetings. I think there should be a simple rule that we need to fund minimum the participation of the Chair plus one person from each constituency, but the general rule should be Chair plus TWO from each constituency. If a representative eligible to go under the constituency terms has other funding to go his place should be passed on. b) if we want and are expected to do outreach in order to engage with members and funders we need first to have our documentation and materials ready online and in print. We need to have a NCSG brochure that is targeted to new members and one that is targeted to potential sponsors. We can do that ourselves but there are people who do it better then us and we should request funds to engage them and to realize the two products above. c) we need to create and execute a fundraising strategy. Fundraising today is done in our case face to face through contacts with interested organizations and individuals and we need to have the funds to get the ball rolling. once we have some additional funding above that from ICANN sources, the fundraising initiative will pay for itself. d) we need to create some outreach initiatives. Here we need to be proactive and not wait that people come to us, we need to go to them. NPOC should be participating and represented, (with good support materials) at key national and international meetings. Some of us participate at these meetings anyway but need support to do so. (BTW, all materials we use should talk 90% about NCSG and 5% each about NCUC and NPOC. Any registration materials should give the choice to either join one of the two constituencies or none of them equally, let the constituency do their own outreach on top of it, that is their job. All NCSG materials need to be neutral). In my opinion we should have a strategy that mostly targets organizations as members and that we recruit the best individuals through and in the organizations. Fact is, if you do not have your employers support in the first place, you will not be able to participate at all. e) Talking about facts, 90% of what we need to do is still informing about what ICANN does and what opportunities the participation in it brings. NCSG should seek to hold webinars, lectures, information events and that needs funding. f) All the above will not work out well if we are not aware and take care of that we need NCSG community building first and foremost. We need to create engagement and connection points with NCSG, such as interactive www sites and so on. If we engage with the ICANN staff I think we might be able to get a lot of things done with existing resources. I suggest we define this better and explore the possibilities. In addition to all of the above we need to create a administration for the handling of the funds including invoicing, reporting and audits, all of which costs money and needs to be included. We can also hope here for ICANN support. I think that is roughly what I have to say. After the points have been discussed, changed and added we can put dollar figures behind each point, but I think that it is imperative that NCSG engages with ICANN finances BEFORE the Costa Rica meeting in order to liberate some limited funds to get some of the above going before 2013. Let me know what you think. Looking forward to your comments Klaus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller Mon Jan 9 19:02:13 2012 From: mueller (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 17:02:13 +0000 Subject: [FC-NCSG] Thoughts on FC overall and Y13 budget In-Reply-To: <04624D0C18C949ACA9473FA66EEE0E28@KlausPC> References: <04624D0C18C949ACA9473FA66EEE0E28@KlausPC> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2071C93@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> I will weigh in with a few thoughts here. Here are my thoughts, please respond until next Friday if possible so that a draft can be created soonest: 1) I think we have to make clear that the NCSG has a serving and not a policy making function. Basically the FC should be an enabler of the NCSG PC and [Milton L Mueller] out EC. [Milton L Mueller] of course. 2) From the NCSG charter it is clear that we urgently need to appoint the one representatives from each constituency to the FC and have a election of a FC chair. I think that should be item 1 on the next official FC meeting. a) we can request a limited amount of funding from ICANN directly and the ICANN leadership has indicated more or less clearly what they would like to fund and what not. ( enabling participation and structured outreach). [Milton L Mueller] fine, but see point 1 above. b) the Charter also suggests a voluntary membership fee. I think that might be not such a bad way to go if the right rules are applied. My proposal is: voluntary membership fee of USD 50 for individuals and small organizations,(as defined by the Charter Chapter 2.2.3, (less then 50 employees and less then 500 individual members, less then 10 organizational members), USD 500 mandatory membership fee for ?large organizations?. They can afford it and won?t feel it whilst for us it can make a big difference. [Milton L Mueller] this would be a massive mistake, in my opinion. We tried this before, back in the pre-2003 reforms. First of all, you will lose about 90% of your membership, as most NGOs simply don?t have $500 to throw at ICANN. Indeed, the _real_ resource commitment organizations make to NCSG/their constituency is the time its employees spend on ICANN matters. That is worth far, far more than $500, and requiring them to make an upfront payment will simply prevent most of them from ever getting started. But that?s actually the lesser of the two problems. The other problem is that whatever organizational capabilities we have, and they have, will be wasted on endless rounds of collecting, depositing, renewing the membership fees and converting currencies. By the time you collect $50, you have spent $100 or even $200 in time, fees and other resources. The amount of money raised in such a fashion is trivial. Think of the scalability of this, especially for constituencies that rely on dozens or hundreds of smaller members. It just doesn?t work. It?s a non-starter. There is a very simple solution to this. NCSG is actually composed of constituencies, not members. Since the financial needs of NCSG as an entity are quite small, it might want to require constituencies to pony up US$1000 or 2000 as a contribution to NCSG. c) we should create a fundraising campaign and execute it that engages with and requests support from charitable organizations whose Vision/Mission and statues support the area of Internet Governance and not for profit organizations. I think there are a number out there , (like the Ford Foundation), who would support the NCSG?s work if we engage with the in the right way. [Milton L Mueller] I have worked with Ford on this in the past, they funded IGP specifically to be engaged in this area from 2006-2010. The new Program Officer and President will not support activity in ICANN anymore. Their focus is not on global governance anymore and the current President wants more focus on domestic issues. 4) Now it comes to on what to spend the money, (and that is exactly the discussion that needs to happen in the future in the PC and EC not FC) [Milton L Mueller] based on what you write below, there may be a general or philosophical difference in the way we approach this. IMHO, most of the ?action? is now in, and should remain in, the constituencies. It seems to me that your plans for funding NCSG would make it in effect a rival of the constituencies. We should avoid that. Financial needs of NCSG EC and as a SG are very simple. It just supports the basic administration and joint activities of the constituency leaderships. a)the old but every popular topic of NCSG representatives being able to participate in the ICANN meetings. I think there should be a simple rule that we need to fund minimum the participation of the Chair plus one person from each constituency, but the general rule should be Chair plus TWO from each constituency. If a representative eligible to go under the constituency terms has other funding to go his place should be passed on. [Milton L Mueller] No objection to Chair + 1, or, if funds permit, Chair +2. But again, I think the real work needs to be done at the constituency level. d) Talking about facts, 90% of what we need to do is still informing about what ICANN does and what opportunities the participation in it brings. NCSG should seek to hold webinars, lectures, information events and that needs funding. [Milton L Mueller] I disagree. Constituencies need to do this, not NCSG. NCSG is just a thin administrative overlay. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kdrstoll Thu Jan 12 22:56:23 2012 From: kdrstoll (Klaus Stoll) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:56:23 +0100 Subject: [FC-NCSG] Thoughts on FC overall and Y13 budget In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2071C93@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <04624D0C18C949ACA9473FA66EEE0E28@KlausPC> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2071C93@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Dear Milton, Der Friends My replies in Green From: Milton L Mueller Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 6:02 PM To: Klaus Stoll ; FC-NCSG at ipjustice.org Subject: RE: [FC-NCSG] Thoughts on FC overall and Y13 budget I will weigh in with a few thoughts here. b) the Charter also suggests a voluntary membership fee. I think that might be not such a bad way to go if the right rules are applied. My proposal is: voluntary membership fee of USD 50 for individuals and small organizations,(as defined by the Charter Chapter 2.2.3, (less then 50 employees and less then 500 individual members, less then 10 organizational members), USD 500 mandatory membership fee for ?large organizations?. They can afford it and won?t feel it whilst for us it can make a big difference. [Milton L Mueller] this would be a massive mistake, in my opinion. We tried this before, back in the pre-2003 reforms. First of all, you will lose about 90% of your membership, as most NGOs simply don?t have $500 to throw at ICANN. Indeed, the _real_ resource commitment organizations make to NCSG/their constituency is the time its employees spend on ICANN matters. That is worth far, far more than $500, and requiring them to make an upfront payment will simply prevent most of them from ever getting started. I can not see that point, does that mean that 90% of the existing membership have 50 employees and more and more then 500 individual members? Don?t think so. Should only those who can pay employees to spend time on ICANN matter shall have the advantage. I still think we need to spread the load and let the big ones help out the smaller NGO?s. But that?s actually the lesser of the two problems. The other problem is that whatever organizational capabilities we have, and they have, will be wasted on endless rounds of collecting, depositing, renewing the membership fees and converting currencies. By the time you collect $50, you have spent $100 or even $200 in time, fees and other resources. The amount of money raised in such a fashion is trivial. Think of the scalability of this, especially for constituencies that rely on dozens or hundreds of smaller members. It just doesn?t work. It?s a non-starter. I beg to differ! How much will it take to invoice ten big NGO?s and administer a account where the others can make their voluntary contributions? Bad organizational abilities do not justify waste of income. There is a very simple solution to this. NCSG is actually composed of constituencies, not members. Since the financial needs of NCSG as an entity are quite small, it might want to require constituencies to pony up US$1000 or 2000 as a contribution to NCSG. Not quite so simple. NSCG is composed of members that can but do not have to be members of any constituency. (chapter 2 NCSG Charter) What looks like a simple solution is maybe putting the horse before the card. If I am wrong on this point please let me know and I stand corrected. c) we should create a fundraising campaign and execute it that engages with and requests support from charitable organizations whose Vision/Mission and statues support the area of Internet Governance and not for profit organizations. I think there are a number out there , (like the Ford Foundation), who would support the NCSG?s work if we engage with the in the right way. [Milton L Mueller] I have worked with Ford on this in the past, they funded IGP specifically to be engaged in this area from 2006-2010. The new Program Officer and President will not support activity in ICANN anymore. Their focus is not on global governance anymore and the current President wants more focus on domestic issues. Thanks for that important info, there a other fish in the pond that want to be caught. 4) Now it comes to on what to spend the money, (and that is exactly the discussion that needs to happen in the future in the PC and EC not FC) [Milton L Mueller] based on what you write below, there may be a general or philosophical difference in the way we approach this. IMHO, most of the ?action? is now in, and should remain in, the constituencies. It seems to me that your plans for funding NCSG would make it in effect a rival of the constituencies. We should avoid that. Financial needs of NCSG EC and as a SG are very simple. It just supports the basic administration and joint activities of the constituency leaderships. Yes, the main point of difference is NCSG or constituencies. In my honest opinion it is NCSG first and the constituencies whilst representing their specific interests do so under the umbrella and mission/vision of the NCSG. Again, I might read the charter wrong, if not, I like to think that we are working for the common good of us all and not just our specific internet governance interests. ra)the old but every popular topic of NCSG representatives being able to participate in the ICANN meetings. I think there should be a simple rule that we need to fund minimum the participation of the Chair plus one person from each constituency, but the general rule should be Chair plus TWO from each constituency. If a representative eligible to go under the constituency terms has other funding to go his place should be passed on. [Milton L Mueller] No objection to Chair + 1, or, if funds permit, Chair +2. But again, I think the real work needs to be done at the constituency level. d) Talking about facts, 90% of what we need to do is still informing about what ICANN does and what opportunities the participation in it brings. NCSG should seek to hold webinars, lectures, information events and that needs funding. [Milton L Mueller] I disagree. Constituencies need to do this, not NCSG. NCSG is just a thin administrative overlay. See above I am looking forward for your contribution, comments and corrections. Yours Klaus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller Fri Jan 13 17:55:11 2012 From: mueller (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:55:11 +0000 Subject: [FC-NCSG] Thoughts on FC overall and Y13 budget In-Reply-To: References: <04624D0C18C949ACA9473FA66EEE0E28@KlausPC> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2071C93@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2074035@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> From: Klaus Stoll [mailto:kdrstoll at gmail.com] My replies in Green [Milton L Mueller] It?s really hard to read. I can not see that point, does that mean that 90% of the existing membership have 50 employees and more and more then 500 individual members? Don?t think so. Should only those who can pay employees to spend time on ICANN matter shall have the advantage. I still think we need to spread the load and let the big ones help out the smaller NGO?s. [Milton L Mueller] No, 90% of the membership has less than 50 employees. But for these organizations ? and I speak from experience ? writing a check for $50 and sending it to a foreign recipient is a big deal. Endless administrative hassles are created by trying to keep track of who has paid and who hasn?t. I am sorry, but I don?t have time for that, and no one who really is interested in ICANN policy making wants to devote additional time to that. Besides, about 20% of that revenue is eaten up by the currency conversions and banking costs. If you account for people?s time, the processing of the check eats up most of the rest of the value. It?s a complete waste of time in the end ? generates no significant revenue, and acts as a major deterrent to joining. I beg to differ! How much will it take to invoice ten big NGO?s and administer a account where the others can make their voluntary contributions? Bad organizational abilities do not justify waste of income. [Milton L Mueller] We are not talking about 10 big NGOs. We are talking about 30 or so big NGOs and hundreds of smaller ones, and individuals. I proposed to require constituencies to pay up US$1000 or 2000 as a contribution to NCSG. [Milton L Mueller] You replied: Not quite so simple. NSCG is composed of members that can but do not have to be members of any constituency. (chapter 2 NCSG Charter) What looks like a simple solution is maybe putting the horse before the card. If I am wrong on this point please let me know and I stand corrected. [Milton L Mueller] It is simple. 95%-99% of NCSG are members of either NPOC or NCUC. That will continue. I don?t understand what it means to say this puts the horse before the cart. It seems to me that you are putting the horse before the cart. NCSG is just a think organizational overlay. It is very simple, efficient and productive to have constituencies pay ?dues? to support the NCSG. The idea of having two distinct levels of membership, with possibly fees or contributions at both levels, is putting the cart before the horse. The point is to contribute to policy development, not to build yet another organizational apparatus. 4) Now it comes to on what to spend the money, (and that is exactly the discussion that needs to happen in the future in the PC and EC not FC) Yes, the main point of difference is NCSG or constituencies. In my honest opinion it is NCSG first and the constituencies whilst representing their specific interests do so under the umbrella and mission/vision of the NCSG. Again, I might read the charter wrong, if not, I like to think that we are working for the common good of us all and not just our specific internet governance interests. [Milton L Mueller] The fact that NCSG is supposed to represent noncommercial users as a whole does not mean that it has to erect a complicated and expensive administrative apparatus. The constituencies are doing fine as they are now. NCSG and its committees are just supposed to facilitate cooperation among the members and the constituencies on matters of common interest. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Mon Jan 16 20:28:48 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:28:48 -0800 Subject: [FC-NCSG] FC meeting In-Reply-To: <68D4F7D86BD149E8BFC049F4EA9C3673@KlausPC> References: <68D4F7D86BD149E8BFC049F4EA9C3673@KlausPC> Message-ID: <08C320C1-4D1E-49A0-ACDD-DFA2E9B76A40@ipjustice.org> I am available on Thursday the 19th. The 2nd time below conflicts with the NCSG Open Policy call. Time is short, so I suggest we have this discussion on the FC mailing list because waiting to schedule a call might mean that we never get started. I've cc'd the list here, so let's try to decide on the items we wish to request in this year's budget - focusing on what we can find agreement on. We can do a lot of the work on this list. Thanks, Robin On Jan 12, 2012, at 7:04 AM, Klaus Stoll wrote: > Dear Robin > > Ok, let?s try to get a small conference call together. We need to return the Y13 form. How about: > > 1.) Tomorrow, 16.00 EST > 2.) 16th, January, Monady, 16.00 EST > 3.) 19th, January, Thursday, 16.00 EST > > I am basically free all day these days, so you can suggest another time. I think we should prefer Monday as that gives us a chance to set up the room and call in others. > > Please let me know as soon as possible. > > BTW, do I read the NCSG Charter right that we also need to elect a FC chair? > > Yours > > Klaus > > > > > From: Robin Gross > Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 11:35 PM > To: Klaus Stoll > Subject: Re: FC meeting > > I'm game for trying to schedule a meeting for a discussion about the FY13 budget request. We might have to stick to only those items we can find agreement on. > > If we can't find a time when both you and Milton can participate in a call, we might have to use the mailing list to get this task done in time for the deadline. > > Thanks, > Robin > > > > On Jan 11, 2012, at 1:31 PM, Klaus Stoll wrote: > >> Dear Robin >> >> Greetings. Due to the fact that we have different opinions in the FC on where to go, but at the same time we have to submit the FY 13 Community Request form, is it OK with you if I call for a FC Committee meeting soonest. >> >> Abrazos >> >> Klaus > > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Wed Jan 18 02:48:40 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:48:40 -0800 Subject: [FC-NCSG] Fwd: Information Request - GNSO Toolkit Checklist Survey For FY13 -- Deadline 20 February 2012 References: Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: > From: Robert Hoggarth > Date: January 13, 2012 6:14:40 PM PST > To: "David W. Maher" , Graham Chynoweth , Marilyn Cade , Tony Holmes , "Metalitz, Steven" , Robin Gross , Konstantine Komaitis , Amber Sterling > Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry , David Olive , Liz Gasster , Chris at Andalucia > Subject: Information Request - GNSO Toolkit Checklist Survey For FY13 -- Deadline 20 February 2012 > > Dear David, Graham, Marilyn, Tony, Steve, Robin, Amber and Konstantinos; > > I hope you are all enjoying a productive start to the new year. As previously promised, attached please find a new checklist survey designed to gauge your GNSO Stakeholder Group (SG) or Constituency?s interest in receiving the various available GNSO Toolkit menu services for the ICANN 2013 Fiscal Year (FY13)(starting 1 July 2012). > > The purpose of the checklist survey is to help build a data set that will allow Policy Staff to contribute to the ICANN FY13 budget development process and otherwise develop staff resource plans for FY13. It will also help us to organize any necessary follow-up planning discussions for those potentially challenging menu service items (e.g., web presence support, organizational record-keeping and membership contact lists which have been delayed by the longer implementation time of the GNSO web site effort)that will require further community/staff discussions and collaboration. > > The GNSO Toolkit menu is a separate activity from the other budget framework discussions you may be having with the ICANN Finance Team. While some are still under development, the GNSO Toolkit menu services reflect core budget categories that the Policy Staff has taken ownership of and that we plan for in the budget effort as continuing services from year to year. > > Glen needs to have each SG and Constituency?s completed form in hand by COB on 20 February to confirm each community?s desire for specific services in the upcoming fiscal year. This mid-February date will give Policy Staff the opportunity to fold all the requests into the FY13 budget planning process and to specifically identify or designate potential resources where appropriate. > > The checklist template has been created to provide for a consistent response format, but please feel free to provide expanded comments or additional thoughts for specific menu items when you transmit your completed responses to Glen. > > We have also provided space in the survey for you to comment on the Staff provision/implementation of the various service menu items that you are currently receiving. This will help us to assess and improve the effectiveness of the existing services. > > This process may be new for some of you, and Glen and I are happy to give you background information. Please send a note to Glen and me if you have questions about any specific part of the checklist. We are also happy to join you for a telephone discussion as well. I have also attached a copy of the original GNSO Toolkit Implementation Plan/Report for your review and background information. > > Finally, there is always room for improvement in the checklist template, so any comments or suggestions you have for improving the information collection process are also most welcomed. > > Best regards, > > Rob Hoggarth > +1 424 558 4805 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO Toolkit Services Checklist (Jan'12).doc Type: application/x-msword Size: 93696 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ToolKit Implem Report-Nov 2010.pdf Type: application/x-msword Size: 226602 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: