ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

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

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


Hi,
In my suggestion, the first name a constituency nominates goes through automatically. I.e. if the constituency picks one that person in on the list. of course a constituency could decide to pass. 

so in essence the council is _not_


involved with regard to whom a
constituency wants to select for travel support?
in the first instance. All we do is take the first name on lists and put it on the council's list of people to get support.
the suggestion for the way to handle the other 4 is for the constituencies to 'nominate' people if desired (postions 2 and 3 on their list) and then the council picks the remaining from those so nominated by the constituencies.
In the best cse, it will work out and only 10 names will be offered. If > 10 are nominate then we figure out how to distribute the other after giving each constituency that wants, it first choice for support.
(actually, my personal opinion, in the best of all possible worlds we would have all members of the council supported at a proper level - same as the board - but that is a longer term issue and I think we need to be ready to use the support we have for Cairo while figuring out how to appeal the procedure - if that is what the council decides to do) 

a.



On 20 Aug 2008, at 10:58, Gomes, Chuck wrote:


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