| No. | Recommendation | Recipient | Thematic Group Source | Assignees | Status |
| 40 | ICANN should offer a process similar to the Community Regional Outreach Pilot Program (CROPP), but applicable to short lead-time budget requests not related to travel. | ICANN Board; ICANN Staff | TG5 |
| ON HOLD - Pending External Process Pending the outcome of ICANN's civil society engagement efforts |
Actions:
- Finance & Budget Sub-Committee to check what would be allowed/not allowed re promotional items; if there's anything that will be refused, we will bring this up with the Board
- :
- ATLAS IT and Outreach & Engagement Sub-Committee members to review the draft ICANN's Civil Society Engagement proposal (At-Large ICANN Civil Society Engagement in Fiscal Year 2016 Workspace) and to discuss whether this proposal is in line with the recommendation. The groups will report back their review in the ATLAS IT meeting on Sep.
- Heidi Ullrich to find out how GSE North America's team has conducted outreach activities in Toronto without notifying NARALO; communications gap like this needs to be avoided in the future.
- Judith Hellerstein to discuss her thoughts on the ICANN Civil Society Engagement Plan in the Outreach & Engagement SC meeting.
- Outreach & Engagement SC will figure out how At-Large can coordinate with the GSE on local outreach & engagement efforts and guide the creation of appropriate events
- Finance & Budget SC will review the potential short-lead time funding requests of outreach & engagement events
- :
- During ICANN 54, the ALAC to follow up with Fadi Chehade re the $10,000 contingency fund
Notes:
- Communications budget is available in FY15
- ALAC/At-Large to request a fund for promotional items for engagement and outreach (could be within FY16 AC/SO Requests)
- :
- There has been some degree of follow-up re this recommendation. During the ICANN 53 ALAC-Board meeting, ICANN CEO proposed a special funding (e.g. 10,000 USD) seemingly to be used to assist community members for visa related matters. While it does not seem to have explicit follow-up re this proposal, some At-Large members were provided funding to obtain visa for ICANN 54. This may indicate that the ICANN Board is receptive to short-lead funding request and the ALAC should be encouraged to advance this recommendation with the Board.
- This recommendation is linked to recommendation #21: https://community.icann.org/x/TZZCAw
- Challenge for CROPP is that it is only used for community members to participate in existing events; it cannot be used to fund or organize events. The only way to fund or organize event is to apply for a special budget request and let the Finance and Budget Sub-Committee decide whether it is viable. FBSC usually reviews the event applications in Jan or Feb. The events have to be really well planned out, especially with good budget estimates, otherwise the applications will be rejected. It is very hard to plan some event that is so far out at the beginning of the year.
- At-Large should have the ability to apply for ICANN funding for members to organize events that will happen in a shorter period of time (e.g. 3-month time, 6-moth time). As such, the application for funding will be more well thought out. This funding should be separate from CROPP's funding.
- This funding should also cover community-initiated education / capacity building events/activities that are not related to travel. The funding will mainly cover venue, refreshment, and other spending to attract people to attend the events.
- LACRALO's proposal can serve as an example for such funding (https://community.icann.org/x/Aa7hAg; https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lXtoi9VNuaR0mA2lli9IAAAMgQHa6wOGeVKbirT_-a8/edit)
- The draft ICANN Civil Society Engagement Plan (https://community.icann.org/x/-5FCAw) may also relate to this recommendation. It can create collaboration opportunities between local ALSes, GSE, NPOC, NCUC, and NCSG. For example, the events hosted by GSE and other constituencies may already have venue and refreshments covered, or provide the funding for workshops and panels that ALSes ask for, so that local ALSes can take advantage of the existing resources and avoid reinventing the wheel.
- Nonetheless, At-Large members like Sebastien Bachollet disagrees that the proposal is pointing ICANN in the right direction, as civil society is only a subset of the user community. He emphasized that ICANN is not organized via civil society and shouldn't over emphasize the civil society concept. At-Large is the voice of billions of end users, much greater than the civil society; overemphasizing this concept may make At-Large end up like ISOC chapters, etc. All ICANN Staff need to make an effort to meet local ALSes when they are traveling for outreach and engagement related work. Judith Hellerstein thinks that At-Large's work is more in line with NPOC.
- :
- There hasn't been much going on in FBSC. FBSC will hold call soon but schedule is unknown.
- Dev Anand Teelucksingh believes that ICANN should provide funding for short-lead budget requests, but Alan Greenberg disagrees with this type of funding. Alan thinks that ICANN won't be very acceptive to short-lead budget requests on unspecified items, and specific requests need to be made in order to get funding.
- There is a communications fund bucket for the community to use at our discretion. We need to come up with the specific requests to use that fund.
- During the ICANN 53 Board Meeting, Fadi Chehade proposed a $10,000 contingency fund seemingly allocated for visa related matters. Follow-up work needs to be done, as we are unaware or uncertain who have the money, whether it can only cover visa issue, etc. This proposal seems to have made an impact according to Heidi Ullrich, as some community member was able to funded by ICANN to obtain visa. Nevertheless, clarification of Fadi's proposal is needed.
