An even split for Cairo may make sense. But WG efforts *are* an
intregal
part of the policy process, and the goal of the funding is to broaden
participation in policy processes. So why wouldn't the WGs fall under
that?
My thinking was that as we move more fully to the WG model, finding
good
WG Chairs will be a challenge. The prospect of travel funding for
ICANN
meetings may prove to be an incentive. If we want some rules around
that, that would make sense - not for Chairs who are also Councilors,
not for Chairs who represent a constituency member, or whatever.
And for the record, I would not accept travel assistance for myself.
Tim
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for
FY09
From: Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, August 19, 2008 1:47 pm
To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
No one has said Councilors are more important.
It was my understanding that we weren't funding "people" per se, but
specific "roles" within the ICANN policy development process. If you
want to change it so we are funding the people that we think are
contributing the most, that is another story, and we can certainly
have
that conversation. But we should be clear what we are doing - right
now it just looks like a "grab bag" has opened up.
Robin
On Aug 19, 2008, at 11:34 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I think we have to be careful about thinking of ourselves as more
important as Councilors than other GNSO members. If someone is
devoting
considerable time to GNSO work regardless whether they are on the
Council or not we should recognize that and help to meet their travel
needs if possible.
Chuck
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
]
On Behalf Of Robin Gross
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 2:08 PM
To: Greg Ruth
Cc: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for
FY09
I agree with Greg. What began as a process to ensure councilors could
participate at council meetings has turned into something else
entirely.
Robin
On Aug 19, 2008, at 10:50 AM, Greg Ruth wrote:
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.
IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx