ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
  • From: Greg Ruth <greg_ruth@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:50:57 -0700 (PDT)
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=r0A6rqgXa8TO4gMTORNLbFRGsp95MrNR/WE71u5Ewb0iRKgNMepy0+asgUd+WBJJuQlQfDHMCj4lciWzZwZY6u6PHfNKg5FCOMrd611ipRKa3lLaSpTlaydEX9ef/lV+9MhUPxui7BaR7kdi8nfJrgAJWdbAhBTqDzliRZ8iayQ=;
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Basically, I disagree with the notion that some of the travel funding should 
be allocated to constituencies and some should be earmarked to support WG 
chairs.  I believe the original intent was not to progress WG efforts, but 
rather to make sure that all stakeholders (constituencies) have an *equal* 
opportunity to participate.  (I would think that a responsible WG chair should 
have been sure of his/her ability to participate *before* accepting the 
position.)  Therefore, I am in favor of dividing the funding more or less 
equally among the consituencies and letting each decide how it can best support 
representation at ICANN meetings.
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>