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

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

Following up on Chuck's post, will shared use be permitted if no one
person needs full support, but two persons need partial support?

K 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 10:59 AM
To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO
Subject: RE: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for
FY09


Why does the Council even have to be involved with regard to whom a
constituency wants to select for travel support?  I would suggest that
we give freedom to constituencies to independently select someone who
needs travel support or to propose some shared use of the travel funds
if that is permissable and send the name to the Council for transmittal
to staff.  We should not put ourselves in a position to second guess
constituencies but rather should trust them to make this decision.  We
as a Council could then work on how to handle any remaining funds, which
could be the focus of the special meeting.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 10:26 AM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for 
> FY09
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> As a recommendation for a way to proceed for Cairo only - allowing a 
> general discussion of principles and alignment with a revamped GSNO 
> structure for later, how about:
> 
> -  Each Constituency suggests a prioritized list of names (0-3).  The 
> first name, if any, of each of the list is guaranteed and the council 
> will discuss how to distribute the
> 4 remaining spots amount the other names that may be put forward.
> 
> -- As an additional element, I would suggest that on names
> 2-3 on the list, the constituency indicate whether there is a special 
> reason or need for including the name.
> 
> -- I suggest that the names 2-3 on the list not be limited to council 
> member but can include WG chairs if the constituency so recommends.
> 
> - I suggest that each constituency submit its list to the council 
> email list by Tuesday 26 Aug.
> 
> - I also suggest that we schedule a special meeting for Thursday 29 
> Aug to finalize any issues.  I understand that it may not be possible 
> for all members to attend then, but as long as there is at least one 
> member, all is better, from each constituency empowered to speak for 
> their constituency, I am hoping we can reach agreement. Also, I 
> understand that staff may be otherwise involved in this time slot as 
> they may have prior commitments, but in this case I think that is a 
> secondary consideration to figuring out how to handle this situation 
> for Cairo in an agreeable manner.
> 
> - In the meantime we make sure we have answers to all questions that 
> may be critical to making our decisions in time for making 
> reservations for Cairo.
> 
> 
> thanks
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> On 19 Aug 2008, at 15:06, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> 
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
>