<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Funding for travel
I think the approach is for full support for all council members. I'm
not sure that trying to divide councilors into classes of need and
interest is useful in this situation.
The organization should simply pay for the work of the organization to
be done, which means the travel costs of those expected to participate
in policy meetings.
Robin
Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
While I have made a request to Denise regarding support for travel
for remote locations by council members, understanding that most
every location is remote to someone, I am not sure what direct action
we can take. I have asked for budget consideration for 2008. Does
anyone have any suggestions?
For clarification, what level of support we are asking for:
- Full support for all council members equivalent to nomcom appointee
level os support
- Full support for at least one member from each constituency
- Support on an individual need basis. As I understand it, some
participants may have already been able to get support on this basis.
One personal comment about nomcom appointee support. For the most
part nomcom appointees are outsiders brought into ICANN and are
generally not people who would have had professional interest in
ICANN had they not been brought in by the Nomcom. Speaking
personally, while a registrant and thus a stakeholder without
constituency, ICANN was not on my list of professional activities and
thus was not something i would have chosen to spent my own income on
(i.e., I was content as an outside critic until asked to participate
from the inside). I am assuming that those in constituencies and who
become active in these constituencies have a professional or advocacy
reason for participation. I am not arguing that this disqualifies
anyone for support, but am trying to point out that there may be a
difference in consideration between nomcom appointee expenses and
constituency representative expenses. Also I do not expect that any
nomcom appointee get their income from activities relating to ICANN.
e.g, I don't. I also wonder whether any of the constituencies
provide support for their chosen council members and whether this
should be an issue as part of the restructuring effort.
a.
On 3 dec 2007, at 09.41, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
I also support another direct request, and echo Ute’s comments. I
doubt that many Councilors outside of the NomComm (who have their
expenses paid) and the Registries and Registrars (who have ICANN
issues central to their businesses) would be able to make the trips
to Delhi or Africa.
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ute Decker
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 3:09 AM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Funding for travel
I very much support that – ideally giving him also an idea of
scale. I am among the many who will not be able to attend unless
travel cost is covered and this is too important a meeting to miss
out on.
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
Sent: 03 December 2007 10:59
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] Funding for travel
Given that Delhi will soon be upon us, and that Council travel
funding is in the ICANN budget, (even though we have repeated this
request in our reform submission), should we consider a direct
request to the ICANN CEO to authorise release of funds for Delhi ?
Philip
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|