-----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