<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
All of which follows is my understanding only. Alan
At 18/08/2008 03:22 AM, 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),
NomCom members are explicitly fully funded according to the new
Revised Travel Support Procedure (first sentence of 2.0 and 7th
bullet of 2.1 - the number of people funded was explicitly increase
above 50% to cover them). The NomCom appointee travel used to be in
the NomCom budget, but apparently is being moved here (or at least
the budget is presented as if it has).
and excludes liaisons who
should be funded by their own base organisation's budget.
The calculation of number of people eligible for funding was
augmented by the number of Liaisons (23 for the GNSO which only has
21 full Councillors), so Liaisons should be eligible for funding
under whatever rule is decided upon. But that implies the money
cannot just be divided among constituencies and NomCom appointees. In
my case, my current ALAC term is up at the end of the Cairo meeting.
Since I am a full ALAC member, I need no additional funding from the
GNSO budget for that meeting, so that money (I would guess) goes into
the general GNSO pool.
After Cairo, but before July 2010, if I am replaced as Liaison by an
ALAC member, there would presumably still be no need for GNSO budget.
If I am replaced by someone not on the ALAC, that person would be
eligible for GNSO funding (perhaps with some back-room haggling
between the ALAC and GNSO).
If the Board follows through on its plan to cut 50% of ALAC funding
in July 2010, the ALAC Liaison would presumably be eligible for at
least partial funding, regardless of his/her committee status (unless
that person was a NomCom appointee to the ALAC in which case they
would remain fully funded).
Gee, its nice to have a simple, understandable, transparent policy.
Alan
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|