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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike,

With all due respect, please note my responses below.  I submit them
with the qualification up front that I do not plan to request any travel
funding.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 12:43 PM
> To: 'Council GNSO'
> Subject: RE: [council] Revised Community Travel Support 
> Procedure for FY09
> 
> 
> A strong argument can be made that Registry and Registrar 
> Constituencies should not get any travel funding from ICANN 
> for the meetings.

CG: As pointed out below, it is not a very strong argument.

> 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.

CG: Registries and registrars just like other businesses come in all
shapes and sizes.  Some normally attend; some do not.  Some can afford
to attend; some cannot.  Do we want to define a full slate as only those
who can afford to attend?  Just like registries and registrars, some
businesses normally attend; some do not.  Some businesses can afford to
attend; some cannot. 

> Also, the 
> Registry and Registrar Constituencies do not have as much 
> problem with outreach for members, since ICANN contracts are 
> fundamental to their businesses.

CG: For sure the registries have the smallest number of potential
members but just like others we have active and inactive members. It
should be noted that a signficantly larger potential member population
can be an advantage.  If the BC successfully recruited a fraction of 1%
of the businesses that use the Internet, they would still have several
times more members than all the registries that exist.

> So they ought to be more 
> able to use Constituency funding for travel than is true for 
> the lesser funded "other"
> Constituencies.

CG: Maybe we should compare constituency budgets. That is probably the
only accurate way of proving or disproving this.  Why would it be any
easier for registries or registrars to fund travel than other
constituencies.  It comes down to choices of the constituencies, choices
about dues and spending choices.  A constituency with more members might
have to fund more travel if they chose to do so but that is all
relative.  It is relative to the membership size and the financial well
being of the members.  The BC constituency clearly has members that are
financially much better off than all of the registries combined, so I
suppose we could conclude that the BC should be better able to fund
their own travel.  I am not suggesting that because I know that there
are businesses that cannot afford the travel but am pointing out the
faulty reasoning.

> 
> 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.

CG: This wouldn't be nearly as bad of an idea if it didn't translate
into giving funding to some who would lobby for interests contrary to
registry and registrar businesses.  But because there needs to be a
balance of all stakeholders, it seems reasonable to balance the travel
funding.  

> 
> -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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>