RE: [council] Results of Travel Policy meeting and motion for 4 September

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

We have not had sufficient opportunity to debate the concept of *need.*
A single meeting and a few notes on the list only scratches surfice. I
propose that such debate needs to take place before the allocation of
any of the travel funds. 

For example, the two contracted party constituencies and the three
commercial user constituencies claim to represent businesses or
associations that rake in hundreds of millions to billions of dollars in
revenue, profits, or membership fees. A half hour looking at the
membership claimed by each and the financial/membership reports that are
publicly available make that clear.

This is not about whose employer is willing to fund who. This is about
the ability of the constituencies to raise the necessary money to fund
itself, including necessary travel. It is clear that at least the five
constituencies mentioned above have that ability IF they truly represent
the membership claimed and IF those constituents are truly in agreement
on the importance of the GNSO's policy work.

The travel funds do not roll over year to year, but they do meeting to
meeting. Using funds unnecessarily now may only make fewer funds
available later for those that may truly have a *need* however we
ultimately decide to define it. Right now, any statement of need I have
seen (including the registrars) is in reality just a statement of
*want.*

If there is no support for waiting, and I guess the special meeting made
that clear, then I would like to propose we amend the motion to allow
only one funded party per constituency. It is irrespondible and short
sighted of us to do anything otherwise right now.  

Finally, I also think that any Councilor that is being proposed to
receive funding in this motion or an amended motion should not be
eligible to vote on that motion.

 
Tim  
 
 -------- Original Message --------
Subject: [council] Results of Travel Policy meeting and motion for 4
September
From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, August 28, 2008 2:41 pm
To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


Hi,

Following this morning's meeting, I have entered the text below on the 
motions page. In it I note that the meeting reached rough consensus 
on the proposal with one person dissenting.

The dissenting view involved a request that the NCUC be notified that 
they should reconsider having only provided two names for the list 
given the fact that not all candidates on other constituency's lists 
were there because of need. Other participants in the meeting 
countered that given the requirement that a resolution needed to be 
submitted by end of day 4 September, we should not reopen the process 
of submitting names. The NCUC member attending the meeting agreed 
that the process should not be reopened.

It should be noted that because the recommendation includes 
recognition of the fact that two council members are Nomcom members 
and that they would be traveling under the Nomcom budget with 
supplemental support from the DNSO/GNSO fund, the list only contains 
12 instead of 13 names.

Other issues that were brought up in the discussion:

- That while it was reasonable to give each constituency one travel 
slot, all other travel slots should depend upon need.
- the question of whether self declaration of need sufficient or 
should need be demonstrated in some manner?
- that it should be possible to split one travel slot between two 
travelers.

Other discussions involved the meaning of 'attending all SO session' 
and whether it was ok for one participant to miss the first day 
because of work obligations and travel time.
- Some argued that the meeting requirements should be defined as only 
the week of formal meetings.
- There was one participant who stated that the support was for full 
participation and that the money should only be used on people who 
could attend all sessions.
- Several argued for flexibility

The meeting reached rough consensus for a definition of 'all SO 
sessions' as including the weekend's sessions before the formal 
meeting began and for flexibility for those who could not arrive in 
time for Saturday's meetings.

As stated in the motion, it was also made clear that this was a one 
time procedure and that for future meetings, further discussion would 
be required. It was also made clear that the current process of using 
the Travel Policy as defined was born out of necessity and did not 
represent GNSO council agreement with the Travel Policy as currently 
defined.

As the motion evolved from the meeting which I chaired, I have listed 
myself as making the motion. It still needs to be seconded.

As always, comments, corrections and clarifications are invited as are 
discussion on the motion itself.

a.


----

Motion on Travel Arrangements for Cairo

Motion: Avri Doria
Second:

Whereas:
(note on the version on
https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?04_sept_2008_motions 
# several of the whereas statement have hyperlinks to the appropriate 
documents and emails)

* On 14 August 2008 ICANN Staff provided a Travel Policy that 
covered participants from the GNSO, and
* On 21 August 2008, Doug Brent, ICANN COO, provided a FAQ which 
explained and amplified that travel policy, and
* On 20 August 2008, Avri Doria, Chair GNSO Council, suggested a 
process for producing the list of travelers as required by the travel 
policy, which was clarified on 20 August 2008and on 21 August 2008, and
* On 26-27 August 2008, all Constituencies submitted a 
recommendation containing 0-3 names of GNSO Constituency Participants 
as suggested, and
* On 28 August 2008, a special meeting of the GNSO council was 
held, at which at least one council member from each constituency was 
in attendance,and
* That the participants of this meeting reached a rough 
consensus, with one dissenting participant, on a proposed resolution 
on supporting travel to Cairo according to the ICANN Travel Policy for 
volunteers, and
* In recognition of the general agreement that the methods used 
for this resolution are a one time solution for Cairo and that further 
discussion will need to be held on the Travel Policy itself as well as 
its implementation in the GNSO once the reorganization of the GNSO and 
its council is underway.

Resolved:

1. The following list will be provided to ICANN Travel Staff as 
required by the policy on 4 September 2008:

Name Constituency/NCA Reason 
Class of travel

Bing, Jon NCA 
NCA Economy
Cavalli, Olga NCA 
NCA Economy
Doria, Avri NCA Council chair 
Business
Gross, Robin NCUC Constituency 1st choice 
Economy
Harris, Tony ISPC Constituency 1st 
choice Economy
Hoover, Carolyn RyC Constituency 1st choice 
Economy
Jamil,Zahid BC Financial Need 
Economy
Klein, Norbert NCUC Financial Need 
Economy
Rossette, Kristina IPC Financial Need 
Expenses Only
Rodenbaugh, Mike BC Constituency 1st choice 
Economy
Sheppard, Philip BC On Principle 
Economy
Walton, Clarke RyC Constituency 1st 
choice Economy

2. That the level of participation that is defined in the Travel 
policy can be met by participation in all of the sessions to be 
scheduled by the GSNO, including the weekend sessions to be held on 
1-2 November, and that exceptions can be made for travelers whose 
employment requirements make it difficult to arrive in time for 
meetings on 1 Novemeber 2008.

3. That the two GNSO council members, Ute Decker and Greg Ruth, who 
are also members of the Nominating Committee will receive 
transportation for the meeting and expenses starting Thrusday of ICANN 
week as members of the Nomcom and that the balance of their expenses 
will be covered, as the per-diem rate defined by the Travel Policy, 
from the DNSO/GNSO funds.