ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


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

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


Thanks for the clarification Avri.  Very helpful.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 12:09 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Council GNSO
> Subject: 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 >>>