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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alan,

Please review the policy again. The Additional Support column of the
chart says "Half of Remaining Council Size and Chair." Half of the
remaining Council (less liaisons and NomCom) is 9, plus the Chair makes
10. That seems to add up right to me.

The liaisons and NomCom are covered elsewhere in the policy. What the
Council has to come up with is a documented, transparent policy around
allocating the additional 10. Since support for the Chair seems to be an
automatic, that leaves 9 spots to deal with. But note the policy is
*very* clear that those spots do not have to go to Councilors (see the
sixth bullet under section 2.1 of the policy).

So I think it is perfectly appropriate to allow the Constituencies to
each have at least one spot to allocate as best fits the needs of its
members and how the use of the funds would allow it to best contribute
to the policy process. That would leave three spots for the Council as a
whole to allocate. 

However, I would personnaly support giving two spots to the NCUC and
there appears to be some support for that within the RrC (ultimately,
if/when there is a vote on any allocation process I will vote the voice
of the RrC and not my own). I also suggest that any Chairs of WGs that
are active at the time be given preference for the remaining two or
three spots.

 
Tim 


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for 
FY09
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, August 18, 2008 1:15 pm
To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


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