Re: [council] Proposed Travel Policy

[philip.sheppard@xxxxxx]

> sounds great  as its all users money


> We had briefly discussed the Council submitting a comment on the
> proposed SO travel funding. To put the current proposal in perspective
> you need to first look at the projected contributions that come through
> the SOs in the currently proposed budget for FY09:
>
> GNSO: $56,051,000
> ccNSO: $2,300,000
> ASO: $823,000
>
> Based on that, the percentage of each SOs contribution that is being
> handed back to fund travel is as follows:
>
> GNSO: $184,800 (0.33% of contribution)
> ccNSO: $170,400 (7.41% of contribution)
> ASO: $127,200 (15.46% of contribution)
>
> In my opinion, there is no rationale that justifies these returns for
> travel funding.
>
> The majority of the members of the Registrar Constituency opposes the
> proposed model, and in fact believe that no travel funding should be
> provided to the Council at all. However, understanding that the majority
> of the Council believes otherwise I would like to propose that the
> Council consider supporting one of these alternative funding models
> (some additional detail may be needed):
>
> 1. Travel support to the SOs should be based in part on the level of
> contrinbution to ICANN's budget.  To the extent that travel support is
> provided to the GNSO, the funds should be allocated to each constituency
> and each constituency should have the authority to allocate that support
> among its members and representatives for travel or other constituency
> needs.
>
> 2. That all funds for SO travel support be pooled, and support would be
> applied for on a demonstrated needs basis. See the proposal submitted by
> Ken Stubbs at:
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/travel-support-draft/msg00006.html
>
>
> Tim
>
>