Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Yes, it is important to find out who in the next two weeks.

Two things:

- Doug in his message indicated that they would be coming out with a  
FAQ answering all of the questions that had been raised.  I suggest  
anyone with questions raise them today if possible.
- Do we need to schedule a special council meeting in the next two  
week to discuss just this issue?
Some comments below.

On 18 Aug 2008, at 03:22, Philip Sheppard wrote:

> Well its good to see the maths has improved.
> In terms of allocation we very much need to decide who.
> I would suggest given the limited nature of this funding that it  
> applies to only elected
> Council members.
> This thus excludes nom com (who are funded by another budget),
I thin it is the same budget, just different allocation within that  
budget.    i believe that the council minus NCAs has 10 slots to fill.

> and excludes liaisons who
> should be funded by their own base organisation's budget.
I believe that should be the case.

Though if a liaison is not a supported member of their organization,  
i.e. if ALAC picks a non ALAC member as a liaison I do not know how  
they are covered.  In this case, I think Alan is an NCA assigned to  
ALAC and thus should be covered under ALAC's allocation.  Of course  
the same does not apply to our GC liaison, but I think that is a moot  
point.
> This seems to be the basis for the budget thinking anyway.
> Given that, then in terms of subsequent allocation that should be  
> done by constituency - the
> body best placed to determine need.
Even if we decide as a council that we will leave picking the person  
to the constituency, we still need to figure out as a council how to  
allocate 10 to 6 constituencies.

> There is of course an ethical dimension to the use of these limited   
> funds that those
> parties who benefit from business opportunity as a result of ICANN  
> policy may wish to
> consider before accepting funding.
> Whether this ethical dimension applies equally to the BC - as a  
> function to our recently
> growing membership of domainers - is to my mind an interesting  
> question.
I think it is a complicated question for everyone employed in an  
industry that profits from the domain name business.  This is perhaps  
one reason why using need as a criterion may be reasonable - even if  
it is the constituency that provides the names of their council  
members who are in need of support.
a.