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

["Anthony Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alan,

You have a point there. However I suggest that
at this time the GNSO reform is not yet finally
defined and implemented, and for the immediate
future it might be prudent to utilize any available
funding with the councillors' needs in mind.
Certainly some Council members (myself
included) should find this funding assistance
to be a great relief!

Tony Harris


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 5:53 PM
Subject: RE: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09


> Reading the recent exchanges, it strikes me that the formal policy is 
> somewhat at odds with the PDP methodology that ICANN is trying to 
> institutionalize.
> The travel documents says "While the calculation of travel support 
> funding is based in part on the size of each council and its 
> liaisons, the SO can choose to support other constituency members 
> based on what will best serve each SO's policy development work, e.g. 
> working group members could be supported."
> At the same time, we are being told that WG's are the way to get the 
> REAL work done. So if we are really effective, and just oversee the 
> processes, and have lots of active, functioning WGs, we are faced 
> with the choice of taking little travel money for Council itself, or 
> telling our hard-working WG chairs and members, that they are largely 
> on their own regarding funding.
> ICANN has formally adopted the BGC recommendations to move forcefully 
> to a WG model for policy development; it seems strange that at the 
> same instant, they are saying that there will be no funding unless 
> Council is willing to give up some of the travel funding that, as 
> Robin points out, started with the difficulty of some Councillors to 
> attend ICANN meetings.
> It seems like a strange mixture of messages.
>
> Alan
>
>
>
> At 19/08/2008 03:06 PM, 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