Международная коалиция по готовности к лечению

GLOBAL ADVISORY BOARD MEETING

Amsterdam July 19th and July 20th

“Never doubt that a small group of committed individuals can change the world. It is the only thing that ever has” – Margaret Mead

A. RESOLUTIONS

1. Revise MOU at meeting (Beri, David, Olive, Rodrigo) and Circulate to the Regions and Tides. Ratify MOU by the end of September (Comments in by September 15th to SG/ITPC list)

2. Structure

3. Regional Coordination support includes CRP and RAC. Regions will decide on the budget on how that is done.

4. SE Asia includes Pacific Islands (SE Asia and Pacific Islands)

5. New Geographic and Thematic expansion will be based on proposals and Steering Committee discussion

6. Final budget due September 1st

7. Proposals for new regions for consideration for inclusion in 2006 budget due by September

8. ITPC formulates policy (International Steering Committee facilitates formulation) – Mauro to draft proposal. Needs to have 2/3 majority by mid-September (10/15 of the RACs)

B. DECISIONS

1. Priorities for fundraising • WHO – Global Office • WHO – Regional Offices • Donors Meeting • Pursuit and Tracking of Potential donors • Messaging Group

2. Regional Communications Direction

3. ITPC Budget and Fundraising Strategy

4. Website – content and comments must be returned within 1 week

5. Monitoring and Evaluation Sub-Committee – recruit to broaden regional member representatives (Polly, Nenet, Olive, Lobna and Tendayi)

6. Draft Budget Task Group – David, Rodrigo, Gregg and Polly

7. Next ISG meeting – Before Summit – Perhaps GAB at the end of the Summit?

8. Tides to explore Foundation or Tides Center Benefits and lower costs

C. COMMUNICATIONS

1. Internal • Skyp.com for telecom (cuts costs) • Refuse digital divide – commitment to inclusiveness • Provide resource to members to improve access?

2. Alta Vista’s BabelFish – www.babelfish.altavista.com or www.babylon.com (dictionary) for quick translations

3. Task Group – Thomas and Rodrigo to discuss communication efforts on translation • Simultaneous translation meetings • Hired Translators

4. Encourage peer learning among grantees

D. DONOR STRATEGY

Ultimate goal is $6.5 to $7.5 million

1. Donor Meeting – Possibly in October

2. Polly crafting a message for the movement

3. Secure WHO funding – 2006 and 20007

4. Arrange individual regional donor meetings

5. RACs approach WHO regionally

6. Gates strategy

7. Approaching individual donors with interest such as bilaterals (AusAUD, CIDA, ADB, Worldbank, Global Fund)

8. Other possible donors • MACAIDS • Kellog • Packard • Catholic Medical Mission • Elizabeth Glazer • UNICEF • UNESCO - UNDP

E. CRITERIA for EXPANSION of REGIONS

1. Access to treatment

2. Level of Health and Social Services (Infrastructure, treatment, care, family support, food, housing)

3. Not “benefiting” from the Global Fund

4. Region wants inclusion

5. Income (middle and low)

6. Presence of movement (emergent)

7. Prevalence and incidence

8. Low level involvement

9. Level of treatment awareness (low)

10. Vulnerable/marginalized population

11. Level of stigmatization (treatment)

12. Cultural constraints

F. 2006 GOALS

1. Vibrant interaction for local/regional areas 2. Small grants thriving 3. Political Movment taking off – integrating grantees 4. ITPC/CF 30% or less for Admin 5. $10 million!!! 6. Coalition of NGOs – gets direct funding 7. Role of gender and equity 8. 500 CB orgs implemented 9. 6 million people have access to treatment 10. 20 countries scaled up access 11. Resourced adequately – infrastructure 12. People recognize the value of HIV/AIDS community as decision makers 13. ITPC becomes synonymous with Treatment Preparedness 14. 1st Round in SE Asia – Community driven dream comes true 15. Brokered new relationships – i.e. generics 16. New leaders being mentored to international level 17. Funding mechanism that meets needs of treatment access 18. Unified movement 19. In agenda of other social movements 20. 2 countries breaking patent/2 producing for others 21. Reduced stigma and discrimination 22. Smooth implementation of program from previous year

G. STRUCTURE OF TIDES AND ITPC – AS A MOTOR VEHICLE

H. STRUCTURE OF TIDES AND ITPC – WITH REGIONAL COORINATOR

I. PARTNERSHIP

J. LIFE GIVING QUALITIES OF PARTNERSHIP Red Check – means needs to work on for the future Black Check – already achieved

1. Willingness to adapt and change (especially outcomes) – 2 black checks, 5 red checks 2. Complicity for conspiracy – 2 red checks 3. Common goals (survival) – 10 black checks 4. Efficiency – 1 black check, 2 red checks 5. Transparency – 3 black checks, 3 red checks 6. Mutual Support – 1 red check 7. Trust – 2 red checks 8. Survival – 1 black check 9. Working together while recognizing and respecting differences – 2 black checks, 1 red check 10. Being open to hearing hard messages – 5 red checks 11. Humor – 3 red checks 12. Communication – 1 red check 13. Using different perspectives to keep balanced (“see whole”) – 6 black checks, 1 red check 14. Listening for understanding – 1 red check 15. Dynamic, evolving – 3 red checks 16. Agree to disagree – 2 red checks 17. Tolerance – 3 black checks 18. Knowing time to go – 1 red check 19. Keeping identity – 3 red checks 20. Respect – 1 black check

MINUTES of the GLOBAL ADVISORY BOARD MEETING

The meeting opened with the MEETING PURPOSE:

Based on the achievements of 2005, develop a joint plan for the Collaborative Fund in 2006.

The Meeting Outcomes were discussed with the list of 2006 Goals (Section F).

Next, the group discussed the description of partnership and what contributes to an Effective Partnership. The diagram and list of partnership qualities are listed previously under Section I and Section J.

Meeting Wisdom or Ground Rules were set at the beginning of the meeting to “Hold the Balance”.

HOLDING THE BALANCE – MEETING WISDOM

1. Many important issues and limited time – Be attentive to time frames 2. Rich diversity represented and shared passion for HIV/AIDS Treatment advocacy and education – Listen to one another 3. Differing ideas and constraints and agreement to work together – Work through difficult issues to find solutions

STRENGTHENING THE ITPC/TIDES RELATIONSHIP

Tides has a lot of structure and ITPC does not have a lot of structure. Both types of forms are assets to the relationship but this difference also causes many challenges. Both organizations need to develop junctures so that the differences become assets. Transparency and Trust is needed to look at ways we can agree to move forward into the coming year.

Think about an exciting partnership you have been a part of – How did it develop? What made the partnership so exciting?

The group separated into teams to think of these questions. Results of this discussion on the “Life Giving Qualities of Partnership” are in Section J.

Next the group discussed the characteristics that are really present in the ITPC/Tides relationship. Each person was given 3 black check marks for qualities that were definitely present in the partnership and 3 red check marks for what qualities each was really passionate about working on.

The next segment of the meeting was Gregg’s presentation on the memorandum of understanding between Tides and ITPC (please see attached MOU).

Rodrigo discussed the diagram of the relationship between Tides and ITPC and explained the relationship structure as a “wing”. Please see diagram below

ITPC was born out of the treatment access movement and Rodrigo felt that these relationships must be reinforced so that the movement was fully focused on treatment access. He made a comparison to the Global Fund – When the GF started, they did not want to be prescriptive but began moving in that direction. We do not want to start moving in that direction.

Thomas described his own vision in his diagram in Section G. He compared the structure of Tides and ITPC as an automobile and we were working together to build a vehicle to drive the People Living with HIV/AIDS movement.

CONCERNS Group members listed the following concerns: - Mistakes of the Global Fund and not repeating them - the CF needs to focus on a very clear goal – treatment literacy. - Projects funded by the CF focused on other areas. One example was that the NIS was shown as a model to South Asia and suddenly stigma and discrimination was on the table. - Concern about the indirect costs - Efficiency and distribution of the budget - How the regions are prioritized – how does this get decided? - Identifying “looser money” – donor money without strings attached - Regional coordination – clarification about the roles. Are they employed by Tides? RC’s are involved in the political dimensions of the work but need to separate out the political dimensions from grantmaking. - Technical Assistance – not enough tech assistance for access to treatment. How to do local tech assistance needs? - Translation issues and concerns. Communication mostly done in English and 4 languages in regional level. Need to overcome translation barrier on the ITPC. Need a sustainable solution. Suggestion: How about having a regional training in English for 1 year or 6 months? - No countries should be isolated because of government political priorities. Ex – Myanmar and Cuba. We need to find a way out of these difficulties - Monitoring and Evaluation going smoothly. LTG needs to hear directly from the RC and the community implementers. - Having a policy on drug company money - Transparency Issues and the visibility of Tides, PLWHA and ITPC. Who is the contract awarded to? Having more people learn about ITPC. - Communication strategy

David talked about how all the concerns brought up were addressed by the agenda except for the issue of focus for the CF. GAB members felt that as RCs developed priorities for access to treatment, somehow in process treatment access got interrupted. A number of regions have based a great deal of emphasis on community mobilization as they want to get up to the point of treatment literacy. Some countries aren’t prepared to go immediately into treatment literacy as they must build communities to implement the projects in their regions. Responses asked for: - a point in time in which the regions can re-focus on treatment literacy as there is a small pot of money and it would be better to use this small amount on a certain focus area - some kind of timeframe to focus on treatment. If we need to fund capcity building to get to treatment literacy, that’s find but we shouldn’t fund organizations to build pill boxes. - Re-thinking and tightening up our focus issues. Not black and white.

David thanked everyone for their input and added as a footnote to the stigma question that S&D came up in every single workshop i.e. – MSM in Tajikistan. Sometimes it is a direct impediment to treatment.

3 issues were brought up as most important: 1. Tides/ITPC Memorandum of Understanding 2. GAB Terms of Reference 3. Financial report

Some issues were brought up by GAB members:

- Space in the MOU of where ITPC members can speak. Relationship also has to have boundaries - Policy guidance – what is the meaning of treatment preparedness? - Structural aspect of the relationship. Mechanism has been set up but ITPC did not have a structure until last summer. We are trying to develop a structure from global to local. CF should be in service to the movement and not independent. CF should be more responsive. Movement is growing organically and needs to take its time but the grants program is outpacing the movement to meet its commitments. - Defining the roles – ITPC has been absorbed with one level – advocacy and ITPC does not have time to make manuals and we need to grow as a service organization. - Are GAB Terms of Reference and Memorandum of Understanding the same thing? - We have to respect our different roles but we are representatives to our communities. It is important to keep boundaries. - Need to understand the policies so that we can bring it back to our communities - Getting the balance right between the political movement and the Collaborative Fund. - We have been talking about roles for months and nothing is set and we have not put anything on paper. We have no ratification process. - Need to work together with Tides to come to an agreement. - View the document as a living document and changing with time – a working document. - Question of accountability - Not contract but serves as guidance and understanding. Platform for further discussion. Not a legally binding document. - Should agree on deadline and get it translated. - Should resolve conflict in a partnership

A group was formed with Rodrigo, Olive, Beri and David to look at the document and suggest revisions. They will circulate to regions and Tides. The document would be ratified by the ISG at the end of September. The document would be circulated to the ITPC with comments due by September 15th.

Members expressed confusion between GAB and ISG whereas others did not care what the name was as the group was the same. GAB was written into the proposal before the ISG was formed. The resolution was that they would be referred to as the GAB in the MOU. Some lingering issues as to the differences between ISG and GAB.

David presented a Power Point presentation on the grantmaking, goals for 2006 and the work completed thus far. He mentioned that the reports from the workshop are available and the goal was to complete grantmaking by the end of 2005 for most regions. Powerpoint presentation available in separate document attached.

The moderator asked for participant experiences in the CRP in their respective regions:

- SE Asia process ran very smoothly because composition of CRP thought about very carefully. That might be instructive for other regions. - The RAC for SE Asia decided to include a representative from Myanmar, Lao and East Timor (politically challenging countries) - SE Asia process went down into the communities and trained grantees on how to fill out the forms. The CRP members made translations in their own language and made an email list within the region. - In the Caribbean, the Memorandum of Understanding for RACs was excellent on paper but different in practice. The RAC and CRP are volunteers giving commitment. They are the managers and the Regional Coordinators were doing all of the work and CRP was not directing. We are accepting part of the responsibility for the communication breakdown. Needed to do mobilization for treatment preparedness. - In Latin America, the region has been pretty well coordinated. RAC is an independent body chosen by their abilities. Main RAC difficulties were with languages, difficulties between representatives/bodies of different countries. We hired a person to do translation but she has not been proactive enough. Because of diverse representation, a huge amount of proposals and we have to be true to listening to the voices of the people and it is a large task for the CRP. Grant implementation process was decided at 6 months but this is a very short amount of time. Looking for appropriate guidelines in the amount of grants and in creating this grant program. - In Southern Africa, they have not received anything yet. She attended the workshop last year and it was an eye opener. - Every region is getting $200,000 but that is a drop in the bucket. We are creating an enormous demand

David’s presentation on financial reporting:

The starting point was the WHO budget with the initial proposal to WHO. This proposal takes us through the 1st week of July. The total amount was an 18 month budget for the regions with 2 rounds of grants in the NIS and 18 months of Tides administration.

In addition, $168,124 has been incurred in additional workshop costs. When we created the budget, same amount was budgeted for every region but we have found that East Africa, West Africa and the Caribbean cost more. Plus, there was a hurricane in the Caribbean that raised costs. There may have been misuse but most of the cost was from the hurricane. Amount raised altogether was $5,069,916.

We have additional money after spending out in the regions as we raised more money that we have spent. The big question is how you would like to use the money?

Please note that the NIS sticks out because it went through 2 rounds of grantmaking while other regions underwent 1 round as NIS was our pilot program.

For SE Asia, there was one grant made to TTAG before the CF existed which is included in the entire budget.

The percentages are going to change dramatically over the months next year. For example, in the 2006 budget, there will be no workshops as the CRP is already formed. The total administration charge is at 22% for now but that includes the cost of both GAB meetings.

The idea that 50% was spent on process/admin versus grants is wrong as the community network, CRP, workshop, TA and M&E are all spent in the region to bring activists together. This is community use of funds and not grant processing money.

- 22% for admin costs – It this something standard? The administrative costs are divided into 10% indirect costs from Tides and 12% direct admin costs (outlined in the budget). We want to do everything to bring down these costs. We are spending a great deal of time with Tides to see if we can cut costs. It would be useful if the steering committee can bring this around to other organizations and see if it can be done for less. - Like to see a breakdown and have information on indirect costs before looking around. Would like to hear more about Regional Coordination and Regional network Support. - It is usual for costs to be up to 30% to administer funding. Members only see the meeting and not the preparation and organizing behind the meeting. Recognize that we went into this relationship with trust and respecting the partnership. There are other things we need to look at.

Gary responded to the questions on the indirect costs of Tides:

- Part of why Tides is so important is that it has 30 years of grantmaking experience - Funders may not have joined if they looked at higher overhead costs. Universities charge 40-50% overhead. - Although organizations outside of the US may charge less, they have access to less facilities. - We are in the start-up stage which is the most expensive. - We are in conflict with our foundation ourselves about these costs so we are looking for other options also. - Calculating administrative costs is tricky and the way we calculate admin figures may be very different from other organizations as other organizations may usually exclude direct admin costs as admin costs. Apples and oranges in how we determine the admin figure. We have been very straightforward and included everything up front. - Happy to go through the indirect costs item by item with you but please go back to the Capetown meeting (original meeting) where we originally agreed on this cost. Not a surprise. - It is important for a partnership to know what is negotiable and not negotiable. The overhead fee is not negotiable as it was agreed to beforehand. We are restrained by this cost. - The type of car that ITPC has chosen to drive has 20 steering wheels and this is expensive to build and drive. - There are 4 different types of organizations within Tides of which Tides Foundation is one. They all offer different services and we are currently talking with Tides Center to see if we can operate the CF cheaper. Tides Center is an incubator that helps grow projects. - Part of the conflict is that funders join us because of what Tides does – due diligence and anti-terrorism audits, etc. Other organizations may not have as stringent standards in screening their grants. - Working with communities is very unique and different. There are no other foundations like Tides in the US – We operate with a value that communities know best and should make their own decisions instead of sending a program officer to prescribe a solution.

- Perhaps it is the way you present the budget. Perception is very important and you need to present the budget differently. I understand that participation from the community has a cost.

Nenet spoke about the meeting between LTG and her, Polly and Olive. Nenet has the full notes of the meeting for M&E. Please contact her for more details.:

- Trying to come up with expectations and what WHO expects - Kevin made a presentation - Representation of different indicators covering the process and outcomes. Not on impact as that takes time to fully track. - Those identified willing to help from the CF or community, can contribute through a specific website for evaluation purposes only. - Doing M&E is not faultfinding but a process to find out what we need to improve - LTG would like to meet physically, virtually with sub-committee - Felt there was a gender imbalance in the sub-committee – mainly women

Cathleen Crain, Niel Tashima, Michael French, Alberto Bouroncle

The LTG group members consist of mostly anthropologists.

Questions from GAB to LTG: - Harmonization indicators. It is a hard process with community based organizations and there are different realities in different regions. What is the process to capture local and regional indicators? LTG and WHO see this as the formative year. Everyone is doing capacity building and there is no expectation that there will be outcomes or even indicators. Small grants so not much paperwork expected. This is not a punishment but a learning process. Hopefully, the information will get back to the community at a high rate of speed. No expectation of global indicators – WHO just wants to know what is working.

- Besides quantitative measures, what are the qualitative measures? LTG has been impressed that WHO is willing to listen to communities and not spreadsheets. LTG’s background is with community organizations. Indicators need to begin in the communities themselves and their voice. At the best point, LTG will disappear. LTG wants to work with communities to make this simple and for local language to become dominant. There is a mixed method in evaluating components. Finding a balance of methods is challenging. It is good to add numbers to the story and song. We will all struggle with out audience to understand the challenges.

o 2 fundamental questions: 1. Did you make a difference? 2. How did you know you made a difference? This is a challenge for grantees to try and reach out to express themselves in their own terms.

o WHO’s challenges are: 1. What can they do with this? 2. Can they bring this to scale? LTG’s challenge is in part your challenge. LTG needs to be very clear that what doesn’t work gets communicated.

- What have you observed so far? Our culture? LTG – This is very premature. People are prepared to learn. Need to connect that with tools and reporting. Tides has done an honorable job of communicating to grantees that they will report back. Based on very small observations in the NIS. o David invited LTG to SE Asia meeting. They are dealing with their vision of where they are going and learning with each other – taking on very hard questions and coming to conclusions o CIS Baltic States gives us a vision of where they are going to go. Evaluation is a method of translation. 300 page report will not help everyone but short reports are easily read. o LTG evaluation plan is under construction. Fundraising is tremendous and the partnership is rapidly outgrowing LTG. Working on capacity building with CRP and RAC. Responding to reality.

WHO has 6 regions on their website. WHO is developing material on treatment to send out to their country offices for distribution. They want to use this material to connect to the country’s population but the treatment materials need a lot of revision. Kevin asked for GAB’s help in revising the materials to distribute to various countries. The materials will address the need for a set of generic training materials and methodology.

- Why don’t you put this on email? Kevin and Gregg agree to post this information on the ITPC listserv - If sending out on ITPC listserv, WHO should be explicit on what it will do and will not do - Kevin will send out the names and the addresses of the WHO Country representatives. - WHO is getting a lot of pressure from countries about treatment literacy. Quickly scaling up. Suddenly, WHO has said that they have exceeded their 3×5 target but not connecting with the communities – i.e. – Indonesia – Country office imposed tools on community instead of using the tools that the community developed. The imposed tools were from Africa and not appropriate. - WHO is in partnership with the Red Cross. Red Cross is hiring SaFAIDS to write materials. The Red Cross has a volunteer workforce that they would like to train in treatment advocacy. Plan in Tanzania was to bring the stakeholders together but it was cancelled by the Tanzanian government. Red Cross is looking to get feedback to improve materials before rolling out in 4 countries (Malawi, Cameroon, Burkina Faso, ?). Need for community involvement. - What is the role of complementary medicine? Treats traditional healers as leaders in the community. Need for spiritual leadership. - Who owns the materials? Ownership by the Red Cross but distributed without copyright. Open license. - Do not want someone to pick brains and use as intellectual property - Why can’t everyone in Afro sit with people in community and get feedback? Approached TAC but they have not responded. Kevin tried for over a year. Bottom line is that they cannot work in isolation. - $1.5 million has been approved for this year for CF. However, the WHO structure is now decentralized and 80% of funding will now go to regions or countries. There are rumors that the Director will be leaving. Have to work hard to get the money locked in for the next 2 years. - Why doesn’t Kevin act as technical advisor and help revise the material? Political reasons why Kevin has to work covertly.

Kevin handed out set of instructions that the Red Cross would like to use. Kevin had major issues with the material because of language like “End of life care”. 3 target groups: patient, treatment, caregiver. Don’t need to go into detail but please list things you want to have changed. Give all your comments to Polly and she can forward them along to Kevin.

The participants envisioned the goals that they would like to reach in 2006. Please see Section F for the list.

David presented his powerpoint on the 2006 workplan and budget. Differences between memo and budget:

- Modest increase given what the needs are - Building the movement – RACs would determine what to use - $200,000 minimum for grants - Tech assistance - $300,000 enough? - What kind of TA is needed? - Regional coordination – some may only want 2 meetings freeing up more money - Direct administration – does not include GAB meetings but does include Fundraising.

- Is there a way to transfer money from one region to another? Yes, In SE Asia, they underspent and we may decide to move the money to another region. - Is $30,000 enough TA to serve the need and translate all the materials? It may be useful to separate out ITPC needs and Tides needs. Tides has already done the translations of their materials and taken this out of the Regional Coordinator budget. - Indirect costs are a worry. Can we figure out a way to make this more collaborative? David sent out the budget in April and haven’t gotten any comments. David asked if he could work together with everyone to do this, He felt that he has been sending documents out and not getting anything back. David has done research on indirect costs and compared to organizations like OSI, we are way below. International AIDS Alliance has 17-19% indirect costs. Need to work collaboratively on this and give David comments on this plan - Possibly shrink the number of CRP meetings? Gregg thinks he can get direct funding from NGOs for RACs and conference calls. Could be raised parallel to grants program. It may be cheaper in the long run. - Rodrigo wanted to understand the difference between RACs and CRPs. A lot of money is for CRPs and they are a technical body and RAC is a political body. 7 teleconferences for the ISG is a little too much and we can allocate this money for other items. If other parts of the budget is not with Tides but with the ISG, it will inflict on us a huge amount of work. - Relationship between CRP and RAC important but not clear. If the CF disappears, the structure disappears. - Need to look at the importance of the quickness of making decisions. - There is a danger in splitting costs between the CF and ITPC. WHO gave the funding to a package. If we went to WHO with just the pieces, it would be harder to fundraise. David mentioned that his comments were not to promote Tides but how to make the project successful of developing a funding mechanism separate from government and donors.

Please look at Section A and B for the final lists formed after the Discussion below.

- Need to look at CRP and RAC and how it related to ISG - Tightening up between budget and actual treatment - ISG’s role in setting funding priorities - Need to look at roles and influence in the budget – Gregg and Rodrigo came up with a document of roles and funding priorities that the group could talk about - Structural issues and role of regional coordination - If we decided as a political decision to break down the regions, then it should be reflected in the CF level. ITPC will make the decisions on the regions. - We need to look at the M&E and inform them that this is our structure. - No road map (pertaining to Thomas’s diagram). The weirdness of the group is that it is reacting to information presented. Tides made agreements with funding partners and these agreements are not negotiable but change in the road map is OK. - It comes down to structure. Imbalance because grantmaking started in some regions before the RACs. - Regional coordinators are not part of the political process and they have their own agenda. Other people who are part of the political wheel may not want to help the RC out. - On a psychotic loop for 6 months – The RACs have political priorities. Structure is pretty clear – For the RCs, we need to define the role more clearly. For the ISG, Rodrigo and Gregg have drawn up a list of responsibilities. - There seems to be a consensus: RAC is the overarching authority in the region. For the RC, don’t think in terms of the person but in terms of regional coordination. Tides gives money to the organization, not the person to: organize CRP meetings and Collect grant forms. This is not a full time job. So for example, you can give a grant to APN+, and one person does grants administration and they can hire another person for RAC stuff. Tides would prefer if both people are within the same organization because of the advantages. ITPC picked coordinators – GNP+ and RedLA but they were not funded. You can use Tides to distribute grants. - RAC is a political body that needs to collect information. ISG is the employee of the RAC overseeing and coordinating activities of the RAC. Political decisions and administrative and technical decisions must be kept separate. Administrative must be separate. - There should be a way to relate the regional activities with global agenda. Way to relate the general goal to the regional level. Important to the way we describe ourselves to the outside. Connection with global agenda. - Real difficulties is making sure that the RC is an administrative position and not a leadership position. Tension between service delivery and advocacy. RC should be purely administrative. - RAC must supervise CRP - In terms of RC job description, have to be definite about time and relationship between Tides and regional coordination. - CRP has direct contact with LOI which connects back to RAC to ISG to Tides. We try to identify funding priorities and how the political arm can get money to continue. - We are both ISG and RAC which makes it hard and conflicts of interest occur. - We need to look at the budget of CRP. They do not need more than 2 meetings per year. - In order not to have conflict of interest, take out the political work and put it with another person. - RAC and ISG work together on general priorities. RAC works with CRP to modify priorities to the region when CRP reports back. - If hiring a political coordinator – need fundraising strategy. Separately or together? - Need to simplify fundraising and approach donors in one party - How do we facilitate communication between RAC and CRP? - Proposal to partner with other organizations to fund networks - We should agree on the budget and that this is a living document. - Regional coordination and regional network support has not been used for our political efforts. Need a clear breakdown of roles and responsibility. No money for RACS to get together. - How much TA money do they need? Regional network support money was used for the RACs meeting. - There is an attempt to make everything tidy but every region is very different. It seems like there should be some freedom built into this. - $500,000 in budget for RACs to operate and facilitate the process. Is this not enough? Gregg: Not enough. The CRP has all this money for translation and everything and the RAC does not have this money. Need to find a mechanism and something that is flexible in the middle. The getting together to do something (CRPs) – not enough getting done by doing grantmaking. - It seems that there is a shift in priorities in the budget. - CRP is a purely technical committee and we can allocate the money elsewhere. You can have some money to support RAC. The meetings of the CRP has to happen with the RAC. It can be a larger meeting and a longer meeting. Political and tech and admin discussions. - We are talking about a larger budget for regional support. Funders will not understand the difference between ITPC and Tides Foundation.

Diagram H is drawn up to explain the structure of relationships for regional coordination and the relationship between the different bodies.

Please see List E for the Criteria for the Expansion of Regions – The group generated criteria for expanding the regions. Below is the discussion about which criteria to use.

- Mauro and Elena and John disagreed with the Non-EU Members criteria. Cannot simply exclude EU countries especially the Balkans. - EU has a responsibility to take care of their low income people. - EU is not a political union but a marketplace. You join for a chance to develop and grow. Not an automatic indication that you are developed. - From SE Asia RAC, want to broaden the geographic focus to Pacific Islands. 2 meetings have just been held and they want to give $20,000 to expand. - In North Africa meeting held to look for future funding to expand region in North Africa. - Maybe they can go back to the ISG and the ISG can see the organization involvement of the region? Formally apply to the ISG for regional expansion? - Why did China pass? It is a country. Need rational procedures. Feel SE Asia should submit a proposal and we can approve as a group. Regional expansion has to be ratified by the ISG. - Suggestion about inclusion of Myanmar and Papa New Guinea is a suggestion for the minutes. - SE expansion will go through for now but in the future, it must go through a process - Since the window for funding arises so quickly, need a mechanism to engage the ISG for how to expand into different regions. How quick? 1 to 2 days. - Nenet and Rodrigo are now the chairs of the ISG. You may want to go to them first. - China should not break off as a separate region. RAC has not made the decision. Just because a donor comes in and decides to fund a region. - A donor did not come to us to split off a region. During the SE Asia Workshop, there was a clear discussion about breaking off China into its own separate region. The decision was made to make China into a new region and that David should look for funding. There is funding in place now for 2005. In 2006, a whole new ball game. It was separated out in the budget. - Elena wanted to speak about SE Europe – in the region, 3-4 weeks they are having RAC meeting and want to involve the people in the process. They don’t know anything about their funding for 2006. She began one year ago for nothing. They need to know. - Proposal put forth that everyone with regional expansion plans has to put in a proposal with a budget to fundraise off of by September 1st. Comments must be in by September 1st. This gives 6 weeks to set up a proposal. - David said that there would be meetings and we need to make a compromise. We need to get the budget in by September 2005, - Final Proposal – By September 1st, a finalized budget. New region proposals must be in by September for consideration.

Major Questions:

1. Are we talking about fundraising for ITPC or CF? 2. What is everyone’s role in fundraising? 3. Having a donor meeting? 4. Renewing donors? == DISCUSSION ON FUNDRAISING ==

- 2 areas of fundraising: political and implementation - Do we need an additional strategy to strengthen our political wing? How do we strengthen our other wings? Do we need an individual strategy? - A proposal was voiced by Gregg to do the fundraising together – thinking about transition, thematic meetings. Willing to construct a budget but the fundraising should be done together. Marrakesh is estimated at $500,000. Final budget for estimate on target - $6.5 to $7.5 million - Increasing the budget would have more money being administered by Tides. The additional money we raise would increase administrative costs. We should discuss some kind of alternative. - Helpful to go back to the car model and who is driving the car. Fundraising is a political strategy. Training activists to grow into their roles. Go back to the meeting in Rockefeller where the activists raised the money. Tides support was just the back office support – Tides arranged the meeting and got the activists through the door. Going forward, having an activist face is very important. - David agreed that money must be raised but unless there was significant ITPC involvement. He did not think he could raise the money. With ITPC, he felt they could reach the target. - If there is funding somewhere and David is the mediator, would it have to go through Tides? All the money for the CF goes through Tides right now. - Heard a proposal to move from Tides Foundation to Tides Center, would that be cheaper? We would know by September 1st. Gary mentioned that he imagined that they could find another intermediary. - Does it mean that the 10% would apply to the total amount ot the CF Fund amount? - How can we be helpful to Tides to raise money? David gave 3 ideas: o Crucial that we hold a meeting for CF Donors and it should include potential donors and the invitation to potential donors should come from current donors. Bring powerhouse funders together. The donor meeting would have representatives of ISG to put a human face to the movement. Meeting needs to happen no later than October. This is a key activity. o We heard a very difficult loud and clear message that WHO funding is tentative. Jin is leaving in June. We need to get the 2006 and 2007 funding. Funding decisions are getting decentralized in WHO. Jin needs you to go to the WHO Regional Offices to make noise. Jin had to go through a lot last time to get our funding. o Lots of individual donor meetings like the Rockefeller meeting. Need to plan individual donor meetings with ITPC representation. Suggest allocating some of the extra money to travel for fundraising. - Gregg mentioned 2 things: o RAC meeting coming up. I think all the regional offices need to meet with WHO regional offices o There has to be a Gates strategy. It is not OK for Gary to do a presentation and for Gates to say no. - A letter was sent last November to Helene at the Gates Foundation. Her response to Gary was an email from her Blackberry that she does not have time - Regional Strategy – What is the role of Tides and ISG in supporting the strategy? There are several roles and think more of support and need. Rodrigo found it important to empower internal partners. - Olive asked about funding for Cuba – Gary mentioned that Tides could find ways to get money to difficult countries. Could we get ISG’s approval that we could get funding for Cuba? - Gary voiced his experience with donors is that you have to have a relationship with someone to get the foot in the door. - We need a policy to deal with donors who make requests for new regions. We need to have a strategy to approach donors. - Need to get a timeline as all the strategies are doable. - How do we make sure that the donor meeting is not conflicting? Any way to make sure that we are not competing? - We are helping Tides with fundraising. We should have solid evidence for donors. - If you look at the options, who is going to do everything? Gregg’s suggestion is good. WHO country offices structure is very different. Their head is based in Manila. We could organize from Manila and put together a meeting. - Like the idea of putting a human face on these donors. They should also be prepared to face barriers as they are pulling out of Zimbabwe. We want ITPC and Tides to speak on our behalf. - This is a many level approach and it looks fantastic. Our strength is telling stories and creating a level of urgency. - We never talk about Australia but we need to have a fundraising chapter in Australia. Need to have an MOU with GNP+. - People think of fundraising as begging but wrong attitude to bring to table. Native people of Chiapas have a different attitude. You are bringing currency to the table when you walk in with the sense of your own currency. Not about chasing money. It did not corrupt their position in Mexico. - Very keen on sneaking around indirect costs. Polly volunteered to work on presenting info for donors a she had past experience as an art director. - The chart is reflecting a crippled political wing. We are struggling to find money when we are influential activists. We need to have a steering group meeting away from the GAB meeting. There are a lot of frustrations but it is not with David or Gary. Know how it is on the country level but it is up to the group to make decisions. If we are saying something is not happening, this is not the fault of Tides. We hold common responsibility of not answering emails. Sense do not have enough time as ISG. We are made to think that $6.5-$7.5 million is big but it is awful since billions are out there. - Sense of urgency with WHO. Think we should put out a call to ITPC for fundraising. Certain donors out there that are trying to counterbalance what is happening in the US government. - Agreement – Priority on WHO funding. - RC in WHO is based in Manila. Get a letter from Jin Kim to get things together for the Global Fund. We have to get him to endorse us for the Global Fund. A huge amount of Swedish money for care support and treatment. - Jin Kim has asked us why we have not submitted an application for Global Fund. - In NIS, we have 2 years worth of stories. They are commissioning a report to tell the story of what is happening on the ground. - Movie thing is a great idea. Front AIDS movie was great. Helene torture strategy includes the World Bank torture strategy. - Global Fund created to empower local NGOs in the country to find money. We need to empower the local groups to find big money. Need a deeper discussion on this. - We need a united movement and raise money for ITPC and the Collaborative Fund. Need to sit down with GNP+ and ICW and ask them what’s in it for us? We need to have a formal discussion about approaching donors together. - Donor meeting is not about the Lima conference. Don’t think it is possible to hav anything joint. We need to have a formal discussion. - There are 19 donors in the CF. Need to take that opportunity in October. That donor meeting is crucial for survival. - Maybe Kate Thompson could combine together with UNAIDs and GNP+. Think the Gates strategy can happen immediately. - Rockefeller $750,000 one shot deal. Now the person we were dealing with is leaving. The key is getting representatives from countries – Pat Naidu – East Africa, Virginia Bahn, Bangkok. - What is the process for getting the meeting organized? o Have the donor meeting in October o No more than 2 days o Distribute calendars o Prepping materials o Have list of donors - David will prepare a memo by the end of the week for the donor meeting - Need to roll out the red carpet on activists with Zachie, Dima, etc. - Particularly looking at government development agencies – Jacob Gale. UNIADS could fund meetings, not grants. AIDS FONDS Netherlands – Executive Director is leaving. - Pharma policy – how quickly do we need to have the policy? Beyond policy, J&J is an earmarked donation. Should be thought of in the context of the regions. This has to be looked as the budget of the regions. It should be done under a regional budget. We have a particular budget for each region. If a donor decides to give it thematically, we need to include it in the regional budget. We need to have a policy on pharma on how to deal with people who are dogmatic. AS far as the US government, we shouldn’t touch that with a 10 foot pole. We should accept pharma money with no strings attached and some sort of ethical framework. PATAM will freak out if we get money from pharma. YES or NO decision for the whole ITPC. If yes, we will have a policy. Things are not black and white and we agreed on a transparent process. We can figure out ways to handle the donations. What is most important is that these monies have no strings attached. Not completely against taking money from pharma but the question is whether we lose $1 million or we lose PATAM. We have to set the policy for ITPC. In the long term, PATAM is worth millions of dollars. We should launch a huge media campaign. We also take Pfizer money and we took money from J&J and PATAM did not pull out – but we only did it for one region but to make this an ITPC policy, it may be different. How do you frame the question? We have to provide options and examples and suggestions and make clear the process. Our role is to provide all the raw material. - Mauro will make a draft of the policy. - Need a tight time frame and we have already taken pharma money. Timeframe is crucial to the companies we are dealing with. - The people who are dogmatic will be the American. Paint a picture of what projects were funded. - Need to announce a policy of how to make decisions. Need concrete majority.

The next section involved Communication. List C was drawn up from the discussion. The group was concerned about the communication/translation problems from the various regions. One suggestion was to provide the participants with a stipend to fund phone costs and internet costs. Rodrigo and Thomas formed a group to talk about translation solutions. The Draft Website was introduced and Tides promised to get the content to the GAB for revision. The GAB would turn around the comments in one week’s time.

At the end of the meeting, a list of decisions was drawn up – See LIST A.