<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Funding for travel
First of all, I would like to restate my appreciation that Philip
started the discussion about financial support to attend the GNSO
Council meetings. I am also happy to know, from the different positive
responses, that this is a problem that affects not only me, but also
many other council members.
We discussed it in a council meeting first - if I remember correctly -
in Wellington, when information about ICANN funding for different other
sectors was shared, but no action was taken. I was even surprised to
learn now from Denise Michel's mail that "funding for Council members'
travel to 2 intersessional meetings" is in the ICANN budget. Was this in
response to a GNSO Council request? Or how was this achieved? I think
this was done DURING 2006/2007 - so maybe it could be a model to help us
out with wider funding also DURING the rest of 2007 for 2008 as a
special case.
I share the opinion that efforts should be made to fund all council
member's participation (unless somebody says that outside cover has
already been achieved). Otherwise there would probably be a very
complicated process of assessing who, and for which meeting, might get
support.
Let me share my situation as a NCUC delegated council member as an
example. The financial situation of our constituency saw ups and downs
over time. Sometimes I had NCUC support (not full coverage of all flight
and hotel costs), sometimes - like for the Los Angeles meeting, when I
had already given up hope - I got "last minute" outside support. But
because of the late date when I was able to make the bookings, the most
economical bookings were already sold out (I mention this, because also
the TIMING of funding assurance is important to save resources). To
participate in the Lisbon meetings, I paid everything from my personal
resources - I cannot do this often, as I am no longer in a salaried
employment, but I am a "free" associate of the Cambodian NGO where I work.
To financially facilitate my regular participation as a council member,
without the almost regular anxiety whether or not I can finance to go to
the next meeting, would be a great help not only for me, but I think
that quite a number of colleagues in the council are in a similar situation.
Norbert Klein
Phnom Penh
Cambodia
=
Robin Gross wrote:
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
--
If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia,
please visit us regularly - you can find something new every day:
http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|