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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Glad to have you on board Zahid.  Please note a few responses below.
 
Chuck Gomes, RyC


________________________________

        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil
        Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 11:03 AM
        To: 'Council GNSO'
        Cc: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [council] Revised Community Travel Support
Procedure for FY09
        
        

        Dear All,

         

        It is good to join the Council and this discussion.  

         

        First of all I think it is a shame that the Travel Support
allocated is so little and so structured that it seems clear that
greater thought ought have been given to the quantum and structure of
the allocation or at least the guidance as to how it is to be allocated.


         

        In any case, now that we are confronted with the situation I
would agree with Mike in that,  for R & R constituencies this is their
bread and butter and constitutes core business.  Which is not the case
for other constituencies for whom there is more of a challenge to
participate.
        [Gomes, Chuck] There are a couple of assumptions in your
statements here that need clarification: 1) It is true that for many
registries and registrars domain registration services are core areas of
business but it should not be concluded that domain registration
services are there only business areas or even that they make up a
majority of the organizations focus; 2) The fact that domain name policy
involves a core business of a registry or registrar does not at all mean
that participating in ICANN meetings would not be a challenge for some
registries or registrars.

         

        Let me elaborate on 1) first:  I am not a spokesman for SITA but
I think it is safe to say that the domain registration services they
provide for .aero represent a very small part of their business; at the
same time, they have made major contributions to policy work in ICANN in
the past. If SITA cannot justify sending someone to participate in an
ICANN meeting, should they be denied ICANN travel funding because they
are a registry?  As I already responded to Mike Rodenbaugh, businesses
in general are very much like registries.  Some are small, some are
large (much larger than any registries including VeriSign).  Some can
afford to send representatives to ICANN meetings and can justify that
because of the importance of the issues at stake; some cannot.

         

        Regarding 2), registries and registrars are just like other
businesses.  Some have resources to send representatives to ICANN
meetings; some do not, even it it is their core business.  If we want
all stakeholder groups to be represented, shouldn't travel funding be
provided equitably to all groups who have a need?

         

        I may be new but for an Organisation the revenue of which comes
from the R & R's to donate back money to the R & R's so that can attend
its policy making meetings seems circular and to me it is not clear what
rational purpose that would serve.
        [Gomes, Chuck] As Tim Ruiz already pointed out, ICANN revenue
from registries and registrars comes from registrants so there is really
nothing circular at all.  The purpose for registrar and registry
participation is the same as it is for business participation: policy
development that involves ALL affected stakeholders.  BTW, it so happens
that registries and registrars are especially impacted because they have
agreed via contracts to implement consensus policies.  As an attorney, I
would expect that you understand better than many the implications of
doing that without knowing what those policies are in advance. 

         

        It would also seem that another purpose of the GNSO having
representative constituencies is to create a balance between the
interests of suppliers (ie. R&R's) with the other constituencies
(users).  But if the funding is not made available to these balancing
reps it may leave the other constituencies who cannot justify this as a
core business from effectively participating and maintaining the balance
in the GNSO.
        [Gomes, Chuck] You are correct.  There should be a balance.  If
travel funding is going to be subsidized, it should be done in a way
that is equitable for all stakeholder groups, certainly including
businesses that cannot afford the travel expenses, but also including
registrars and registries that cannot afford the expenses, to the extent
that funds are so allocated.

         

        I think we should think about the actual purpose behind ICANN
making the funding available.

        The funding it seems to me is for outreach and to get more
representation of those for whom this does not represent a core business
activity.  As such the other constituencies (other than R & R) should
get more allocation of the funds.
        [Gomes, Chuck] I am not sure the funding is actually intended
for outreach but it may not be productive to debate that. I definitely
do not agree that the purpose is "to get more representation of those
for whom this does not represent a core business activity".  To my
knowledge, the purpose has never been expressed as such.   I agree
though that the purpose is to reduce some financial hurdles that some
stakeholders who are willing to participate in policy development
processes might have; in that sense, it is to increase
representativeness in general.  But that goal should apply across all
stakeholder groups.  If we are going to single out certain stakeholder
groups, because for-profit businesses in general may have more financial
resources than some not-for-profit organizations, then maybe we should
conclude that the NCUC should get more support than the BC.  In reality,
I think it is problematic to over generalize about any stakeholder group
whether it be contracted parties, noncommercial organizations or
for-profit businesses.  Some noncommercial organizations are very well
funded; some are not.  Some for-profit organizations are very well
funded; some are not.  So it seems best to examine the need on a case by
case basis.

         

        Zahid Jamil

        Barrister-at-law

        Jamil & Jamil

        Barristers-at-law

        219-221 Central Hotel Annexe

        Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan

        Cell: +923008238230

        Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025

        Fax: +92 21 5655026

        www.jamilandjamil.com <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> 

         

        Notice / Disclaimer

        This message contains confidential information and its contents
are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not
the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy
this e-mail.  Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have
received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The
contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil &
Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information
protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication,
use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts
(including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means
whether or not transiently or incidentally to some other use of this
publication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil &
Jamil is prohibited.

        -----Original Message-----
        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
        Sent: 19 August 2008 21:43
        To: 'Council GNSO'
        Subject: RE: [council] Revised Community Travel Support
Procedure for FY09

         

         

        A strong argument can be made that Registry and Registrar
Constituencies

        should not get any travel funding from ICANN for the meetings.
The point of

        travel support is to ensure that a full slate of advisory
volunteers appears

        for the meetings.  The R and R reps normally would attend and
participate

        anyway, as part of their normal business, which is not true for
any of the

        other Constituencies.  Also, the Registry and Registrar
Constituencies do

        not have as much problem with outreach for members, since ICANN
contracts

        are fundamental to their businesses.  So they ought to be more
able to use

        Constituency funding for travel than is true for the lesser
funded "other"

        Constituencies.

         

        As a compromise for Cairo, perhaps those two Constituencies
should receive

        half the funding of the other Constituencies, so that more is
available for

        the other Constituencies and for WG chairs that are not from
contracting

        parties.

         

        -Mike

         

        -----Original Message-----

        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On

        Behalf Of Tim Ruiz

        Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 8:35 AM

        To: 'Council GNSO'

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

         

         

        I don't really think there are any errors, although I agree that
the

        document could have included some additional information that
may have

        clarified.

         

        In any case, my proposal for Cairo would be the same. Allow at
least one

        spot per constituency and let them decide how to allocate it.
The ACs

        take care of their own as instructed in the policy, and per the
policy

        the liaisons are covered outside of the 10 additional spots.

         

        That would be six for the Constituencies, one for the GNSO
Chair, and

        three for the Council as a whole to decide.

         

        But regardless of how we do it, basing it on supporting
Councilors who

        simply say they would/could not otherwise attend is not
appropriate. Let

        the Constituencies decide if they want to support one of their

        Councilors' travel, or someone else they feel is important to
have

        there. I propose that the two or three spots left should not to
go

        Councilors but instead be considered for the Chairs of the WGs
first,

        and then to others the Chairs of the WGs might suggest would be
good to

        have in Cairo to the benefit of their policy work.

         

         

        Tim 

         

         

        -------- Original Message --------

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

        FY09

        From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>

        Date: Tue, August 19, 2008 8:54 am

        To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

         

         

        Tim, I prefixed my comments saying that this is how I read it.
As 

        Avri has pointed out, our first priority is to handle Cairo and
for 

        that meeting the issues of Liaisons is moot.

         

        In any case, my rationale is not built solely on the numbers (I
have 

        already found and reported two errors there). The first column 

        explicitly includes the number of liaisons. If (for an extreme 

        example, the GNSO had 10 liaison, then that would have increased
the 

        number supported by 5. If all of that were to go to non-liaison
folk, 

        that would severely distort the intent (more than the possible 

        rounding error of dividing an odd number does now).

         

        In any case, I expect that staff will clarify.

         

        Alan

         

        At 19/08/2008 09:08 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

        >Alan,

        > 

        >Please review the policy again. The Additional Support column
of the

        >chart says "Half of Remaining Council Size and Chair." Half of
the

        >remaining Council (less liaisons and NomCom) is 9, plus the
Chair makes

        >10. That seems to add up right to me.

        > 

        >The liaisons and NomCom are covered elsewhere in the policy.
What the

        >Council has to come up with is a documented, transparent policy
around

        >allocating the additional 10. Since support for the Chair seems
to be an

        >automatic, that leaves 9 spots to deal with. But note the
policy is

        >*very* clear that those spots do not have to go to Councilors
(see the

        >sixth bullet under section 2.1 of the policy).

        > 

        >So I think it is perfectly appropriate to allow the
Constituencies to

        >each have at least one spot to allocate as best fits the needs
of its

        >members and how the use of the funds would allow it to best
contribute

        >to the policy process. That would leave three spots for the
Council as a

        >whole to allocate.

        > 

        >However, I would personnaly support giving two spots to the
NCUC and

        >there appears to be some support for that within the RrC
(ultimately,

        >if/when there is a vote on any allocation process I will vote
the voice

        >of the RrC and not my own). I also suggest that any Chairs of
WGs that

        >are active at the time be given preference for the remaining
two or

        >three spots.

        > 

        > 

        >Tim

        > 

        > 

        >-------- Original Message --------

        >Subject: Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support
Procedure for

        >FY09

        >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>

        >Date: Mon, August 18, 2008 1:15 pm

        >To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

        > 

        > 

        >All of which follows is my understanding only. Alan

        > 

        >At 18/08/2008 03:22 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:

        > 

        > >Well its good to see the maths has improved.

        > >In terms of allocation we very much need to decide who.

        > >I would suggest given the limited nature of this funding that
it

        > >applies to only elected

        > >Council members.

        > >This thus excludes nom com (who are funded by another
budget),

        > 

        >NomCom members are explicitly fully funded according to the new

        >Revised Travel Support Procedure (first sentence of 2.0 and 7th

        >bullet of 2.1 - the number of people funded was explicitly
increase

        >above 50% to cover them). The NomCom appointee travel used to
be in

        >the NomCom budget, but apparently is being moved here (or at
least

        >the budget is presented as if it has).

        > 

        > > and excludes liaisons who

        > >should be funded by their own base organisation's budget.

        > 

        >The calculation of number of people eligible for funding was

        >augmented by the number of Liaisons (23 for the GNSO which only
has

        >21 full Councillors), so Liaisons should be eligible for
funding

        >under whatever rule is decided upon. But that implies the money

        >cannot just be divided among constituencies and NomCom
appointees. In

        >my case, my current ALAC term is up at the end of the Cairo
meeting.

        >Since I am a full ALAC member, I need no additional funding
from the

        >GNSO budget for that meeting, so that money (I would guess)
goes into

        >the general GNSO pool.

        > 

        >After Cairo, but before July 2010, if I am replaced as Liaison
by an

        >ALAC member, there would presumably still be no need for GNSO
budget.

        >If I am replaced by someone not on the ALAC, that person would
be

        >eligible for GNSO funding (perhaps with some back-room haggling

        >between the ALAC and GNSO).

        > 

        >If the Board follows through on its plan to cut 50% of ALAC
funding

        >in July 2010, the ALAC Liaison would presumably be eligible for
at

        >least partial funding, regardless of his/her committee status
(unless

        >that person was a NomCom appointee to the ALAC in which case
they

        >would remain fully funded).

        > 

        >Gee, its nice to have a simple, understandable, transparent
policy.

        > 

        >Alan

        > 

        > >This seems to be the basis for the budget thinking anyway.

        > >Given that, then in terms of subsequent allocation that
should be

        > >done by constituency - the

        > >body best placed to determine need.

        > >

        > >There is of course an ethical dimension to the use of these

        > >limited funds that those

        > >parties who benefit from business opportunity as a result of
ICANN

        > >policy may wish to

        > >consider before accepting funding.

        > >Whether this ethical dimension applies equally to the BC - as
a

        > >function to our recently

        > >growing membership of domainers - is to my mind an
interesting question.

        > >Philip