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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Why would we want to restrict this to Councilors only?  If we truly want
this to apply to those who can demonstrate need, limiting it to
Councilors could unreasonably eliminate many in the GNSO who have need
but are serving in roles other than on the Council.  There are only
three RyC Council reps and I don't know yet except for myself what their
need is.  But what if none of us can establish a legitimate need and
there are others in the RyC that do have a need and are participating in
a WG that will be meeting in Cairo?

I do agree that there is an ethical dimension that needs to be
considered.  That may be complicated but it still should be consdered.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 3:23 AM
> To: 'Council GNSO'
> Subject: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
> 
> 
> 
> 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), and excludes liaisons who should be funded by their 
> own base organisation's budget.
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> Philip
> 
> 
> 
> 
>