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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

The point is that this is not just for Councilors. All constituencies
should have an equal opportunity to be sure they are represented at the
meetings in a way they feel best enhances their participation in the
policy development processes.

If the goal of travel support funding is "to lower the barrier to
participation, broaden the group of participants and, advance the "work"
of ICANN" as stated in the policy, then that should apply to the
contracted parties as well as anyone else.

What you suggest is not a compromise. It undervalues the participation
of two constituencies that are highly impacted by the policy process,
and implies that there are no contracted parties who may be barred from
participation at ICANN meetings due to the expense.

 
Tim 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for
FY09
From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, August 19, 2008 11:43 am
To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


A strong argument can be made that Registry and Registrar Constituencies
should not get any travel funding from ICANN for the meetings. The point
of
travel support is to ensure that a full slate of advisory volunteers
appears
for the meetings. The R and R reps normally would attend and participate
anyway, as part of their normal business, which is not true for any of
the
other Constituencies. Also, the Registry and Registrar Constituencies do
not have as much problem with outreach for members, since ICANN
contracts
are fundamental to their businesses. So they ought to be more able to
use
Constituency funding for travel than is true for the lesser funded
"other"
Constituencies.

As a compromise for Cairo, perhaps those two Constituencies should
receive
half the funding of the other Constituencies, so that more is available
for
the other Constituencies and for WG chairs that are not from contracting
parties.

-Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On
Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 8:35 AM
To: 'Council GNSO'
Subject: 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