<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
The way I read Norbert's comments, it was not an
accusation of ICANN receiving kickback, but
rather that in a world where such practices are
not unknown (and in some areas, common), it is
hard to convince people that there could be any
other motive for refusing to say money.
The rationale that it does not meet audit
criteria is interesting. It is certainly the case
that (to use Norbert's example, but not to accuse
him of any shady dealings) that if he purchased
the ticket in Cambodia, he might have an
arrangement where the receipt he presented for
repayment could have been "marked up". But if he
does arrive at the meeting and the receipt is for
a fraction of the cost of one purchased in the
US, it sounds rather hard to fault (in my non-auditor opinion).
Alan
At 21/08/2008 03:20 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks for the very helpful information
Norbert. I agree with you totally that the
procedures should include as much flexibility as
possible to maximize cost efficiency and benefit as many people as possible.
Regarding your kickback comment: Whether or not
there are kickbacks to the ICANN travel agency
by the airlines, I do not know because I am not
knowledgeable enough about the travel
industry. But I would be very surprised if
ICANN received any kickbacks. One possible
cause of inflexibility may be the following: it
is possible that they may have had to commit to
some sort of exclusivity in order to get some
discounts. If so, then the question is whether
the level of discounts are worth the loss of
savings that might be obtained if they didn't
have the exclusivity clause. Again, that is not
a question I am qualified to answer.
Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Norbert Klein
> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 11:45 AM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
>
>
> Dear GNSO Colleagues,
>
> as I had not been able to participate timely in the
> discussions, and then seeing that the regulations had many
> "open ends" (to put it mildly), I was reluctant to join in
> for a while. But I changed my mind and write now, after
> having read the following strong words from Philip:
>
> = =
> Alan is entirely correct about mixed messages.
>
> Lets be clear this is a VERY BAD travel policy indeed.
> It is deflecting effort from policy to admin, it ignored the
> good advice given during public comments, it is divisive, it
> is mean, it is confused, it is mathematically inept.
>
> Is the Council and its policy making activity worth more than
> 0.3% of ICANN's total budget? Clearly not in the eyes of
> ICANN management.
>
> We should condemn this policy as a Council and request Board
> reconsideration.
> = =
>
> Of course I read also the many other contributions.
>
> For Cairo, I think our chair (and some others) will have to
> muddle through with the present regulations, I hope with some
> flexibility to take care - for example - of such questions as
> Kristina's whether "shared use be permitted if no one person
> needs full support." I think this is a very practical
> question, considering our complex realities which were raised
> in some of the "good advice given during public comments."
>
> For the future, I hope that the following two points will get
> attention. They both relate to a responsible use of scarce
> financial resources - even if the travel subsidy is only 0,3%
> of the budget, which is scarce enough.
>
> 1. Pricing
>
> For the Delhi meeting, I had to have a protracted and
> difficult discussion with the ICANN office to get permission
> ( ! ) to save travel expenses by buying my ticket locally. It
> was not just saving a few dollars. Instead of accepting the
> ICANN ticket priced at US$2,577.70 ("fare is now USD 2577.70
> no lower fares available"), I was, after many mails back and
> forth, allowed ( ! ) to buy a ticket for US$695, though I
> finally bought it for only US$665 (without permission for
> this additional saving, as my clever and concerned local
> agent found, on their own initiative, a seat which had became
> available locally when another person canceled - only a local
> agent can do this in a timely manner).
>
> This was a completely legal purchase (for the same
> airline/flight number for which ICANN wanted to send me a
> ticket almost four times as expensive). My ticket was open to
> change the dates (on the same airline) - the ICANN ticket
> dates would have been fixed/non changeable.
>
> Later ICANN also conceded that my price was possible, because
> I am living in a "soft currency" country, and for local
> purchases (with hard currency) these prices exist. There are
> quite a number of other GNSO, ALAC, and ICANN Board members
> who live in "soft currency" countries. I saved 1,900 dollars
> on one fairly short trip from Cambodia to India. If you
> multiply such amounts for other "soft currency" supported
> ICANN travelers...
>
> Two surprises:
>
> a) I was later informed that my approach would probably not
> be acceptable for auditing. If the auditing does not allow to
> save US$1,900 on one person's single trip, the auditing
> principles are obviously wrong and have to be changed.
>
> When I see how difficult it is made to save huge amounts of
> travel funds, the good argument that we have to set
> priorities to save resources just does not sound real. (The
> wisdom of some Cambodian colleagues says: "Surely the
> interest to have central control on tickets involves some
> kickbacks." It is not easy - in our context - to convince
> people that this is NOT so, when it is not encouraged to make
> huge saving with a decentralized approach.)
>
> b) This is more on a personal level, due to my naiveté: I
> asked if some of the US$1,900 I had saved from being spent on
> my ticket could be made available for my hotel costs in Delhi
> - but I was informed this would be unfair to other
> participants (for whom expensive tickets had been paid, I
> assume, no questions asked).
>
>
> 2. Routing and Timing
>
> I heard that some people who had received ICANN travel
> support (not GNSO) were made to leave before an ICANN meeting
> was over, because there was no departing flight available in
> the evening of the closing day. (If this is a rumor without a
> basis in reality - my apologies.) When I heard this, I got
> again the impression that the policy behind is guided by "top
> down central administration" and not by a "bottom-up approach
> starting with local reality and its needs." To bring a person
> for thousands of dollars to a meeting, and then cut the time
> short to save a bit at the end, seems not to give due
> attention to the purpose of the whole affair.
>
> I dare to add here some elements of ICANN travel regulations
> which were sent to me at another occasion, which said
> something such as: "only tickets for direct connection to the
> event, and for the start and end time of the event"
> can be issued. I think that most of us, working as volunteers
> without pay on ICANN affairs, are busy also with different
> other obligations and tasks and interests, and I would like
> to suggest that we should not need special permits to come a
> day earlier to take care of jet lag, or to stay a day or two
> longer as some ICANN board members do also sometimes, or to
> do our own re-routing (of course always taking care of any
> additional payments, if necessary, on our own account).
>
>
> Conclusions
>
> My best wishes to handle Cairo.
>
> For the time after Cairo, the Council should enter into a
> serious reconsideration of a travel support policy draft -
> taking account of all kinds of practicalities, and consider
> concerns for a "central travel agency"
> operation only as a support and not as a control function -
> once we have clear principles and procedures.
>
> I do not intend to enter into a discussion whether GNSO
> members or WG Coordinators or competent Constituency
> representatives in WGs are "more important" - I am just
> surprised about the lack of clarity of basic common purpose,
> which becomes obvious in the present discussion. Even after
> the GNSO reform , the WGs will not be born by themselves. Not
> to assure that the GNSO Council can function well -
> representing ICANN constituencies - having the important
> function to discuss policy priorities, also for the creation
> of WGs and for the further handling of their results, cannot
> be in the interest of anybody committed to ICANN operating
> with a bottom-up approach.
>
>
> Norbert Klein
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|