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

["Thomas Keller" <tom@xxxxxxxx>]

As you all can imagine I support this proposal.

Best,

tom

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Tim Ruiz
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. August 2008 17:35
> An: 'Council GNSO'
> Betreff: RE: [council] Revised Community Travel Support
> Procedure for FY09
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>