I don't really think there are any errors, although I agree that the
document could have included some additional information that may have
clarified.
In any case, my proposal for Cairo would be the same. Allow at least
one
spot per constituency and let them decide how to allocate it. The ACs
take care of their own as instructed in the policy, and per the policy
the liaisons are covered outside of the 10 additional spots.
That would be six for the Constituencies, one for the GNSO Chair, and
three for the Council as a whole to decide.
But regardless of how we do it, basing it on supporting Councilors who
simply say they would/could not otherwise attend is not appropriate.
Let
the Constituencies decide if they want to support one of their
Councilors' travel, or someone else they feel is important to have
there. I propose that the two or three spots left should not to go
Councilors but instead be considered for the Chairs of the WGs first,
and then to others the Chairs of the WGs might suggest would be good
to
have in Cairo to the benefit of their policy work.
Tim
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for
FY09
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, August 19, 2008 8:54 am
To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Tim, I prefixed my comments saying that this is how I read it. As
Avri has pointed out, our first priority is to handle Cairo and for
that meeting the issues of Liaisons is moot.
In any case, my rationale is not built solely on the numbers (I have
already found and reported two errors there). The first column
explicitly includes the number of liaisons. If (for an extreme
example, the GNSO had 10 liaison, then that would have increased the
number supported by 5. If all of that were to go to non-liaison folk,
that would severely distort the intent (more than the possible
rounding error of dividing an odd number does now).
In any case, I expect that staff will clarify.
Alan
At 19/08/2008 09:08 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
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