RE: [council] Results of Travel Policy meeting and motion for 4 September

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

Thanks Avri.  I have a few comments.

1. I am okay with the whereas clause stating that we reached rough
consensus with the one exception provided everyone understands my
qualifying comment that I would have to get approval from the RyC to
support the motion and that that approval would be much easier to obtain
if there was a statement of need by those who did not so state.  The RyC
has its regular biweekly meeting early on Wednesday, 3 Sep., so it would
be helpful if any need statements are sent prior to then; if we exclude
the constituency first choices, I think that only leaves Philip.  If the
RyC will not support the motion, I will communicate that to the Council
list as soon as possible on Wednesday.

2. If there is any problem providing Kristina non-airfare support via
ICANN funding, I would personally support using the old DNSO fund for
that purpose to the extent possible, understanding that I would need RyC
approval of this idea.

3. It seems quite likely that the use of the DNSO fund as proposed would
exceed the $1000 limit that was in the DNSO motion in that regard from
years ago; we probably should confirm that and make any necessary
adjustments to the motion as needed.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 3:42 PM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: [council] Results of Travel Policy meeting and 
> motion for 4 September
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Following this morning's meeting, I have entered the text 
> below on the motions page.  In it I note that the meeting 
> reached rough consensus on the proposal  with one person dissenting.
> 
> The dissenting view involved a request that the NCUC be 
> notified that they should reconsider having only provided two 
> names for the list given the fact that not all candidates on 
> other constituency's lists were there because of need.  Other 
> participants in the meeting countered that given the 
> requirement that a resolution needed to be submitted by end 
> of day  4 September, we should not reopen the process of 
> submitting names.  The NCUC member attending the meeting 
> agreed that the process should not be reopened.
> 
> It should be noted that because the recommendation includes 
> recognition of the fact that two council members are Nomcom 
> members and that they would be traveling under the Nomcom 
> budget with supplemental support from the DNSO/GNSO fund, the 
> list only contains
> 12 instead of 13 names.
> 
> Other issues that were brought up in the discussion:
> 
> - That while it was reasonable to give each constituency one 
> travel slot, all other travel slots should depend upon need.
> - the question of whether self declaration of need sufficient 
> or should need be demonstrated in some manner?
> - that it should be possible to split one travel slot between 
> two travelers.
> 
> Other discussions involved the meaning of 'attending all SO session'  
> and whether it was ok for one participant to miss the first 
> day because of work obligations and travel time.
> - Some argued that the meeting requirements should be defined 
> as only the week of formal meetings.
> - There was one participant who stated that the support was 
> for full participation and that the money should only be used 
> on people who could attend all sessions.
> - Several argued for flexibility
> 
> The meeting reached rough consensus for a definition of 'all 
> SO sessions' as including the weekend's sessions before the 
> formal meeting began and for flexibility for those who could 
> not arrive in time for Saturday's meetings.
> 
> As stated in the motion, it was also made clear that this was 
> a one time procedure and that for future meetings, further 
> discussion would be required.  It was also made clear that 
> the current process of using the Travel Policy as defined was 
> born out of necessity and did not represent GNSO council 
> agreement with  the Travel Policy as currently defined.
> 
> As the motion evolved from the meeting which I chaired, I 
> have listed myself as making the motion.  It still needs to 
> be seconded.
> 
> As always, comments, corrections and clarifications are 
> invited as are discussion on the motion itself.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> ----
> 
> Motion on Travel Arrangements for Cairo
> 
> Motion: Avri Doria
> Second:
> 
> Whereas:
> (note on the version on 
> https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?04_sept_2008_motions
> #  several of the whereas statement have hyperlinks to the 
> appropriate documents and emails)
> 
>      * On 14 August 2008 ICANN Staff provided a Travel Policy 
> that covered participants from the GNSO, and
>      * On 21 August 2008, Doug Brent, ICANN COO, provided a 
> FAQ which explained and amplified that travel policy, and
>      * On 20 August 2008, Avri Doria, Chair GNSO Council, 
> suggested a process for producing the list of travelers as 
> required by the travel policy, which was clarified on 20 
> August 2008and on 21 August 2008, and
>      * On 26-27 August 2008, all Constituencies submitted a 
> recommendation containing 0-3 names of GNSO Constituency 
> Participants as suggested, and
>      * On 28 August 2008, a special meeting of the GNSO 
> council was held, at which at least one council member from 
> each constituency was in attendance,and
>      * That the participants of this meeting reached a rough 
> consensus, with one dissenting participant, on a proposed 
> resolution on supporting travel to Cairo according to the 
> ICANN Travel Policy for volunteers, and
>      * In recognition of the general agreement that the 
> methods used for this resolution are a one time solution for 
> Cairo and that further discussion will need to be held on the 
> Travel Policy itself as well as its implementation in the 
> GNSO once the reorganization of the GNSO and its council is underway.
> 
> Resolved:
> 
> 1. The following list will be provided to ICANN Travel Staff 
> as required by the policy on 4 September 2008:
> 
> Name                    Constituency/NCA       Reason  
>                                  Class of travel
> 
> Bing, Jon                            NCA                   
> NCA                                       Economy
> Cavalli, Olga                      NCA                   
> NCA                                       Economy
> Doria, Avri                        NCA                        
Council chair  
>                       Business
> Gross, Robin               NCUC               Constituency 
> 1st choice     
> Economy
> Harris, Tony                       ISPC               
> Constituency 1st  
> choice        Economy
> Hoover, Carolyn                    RyC                
> Constituency 1st choice        
> Economy
> Jamil,Zahid                        BC                 Financial Need  
>                       Economy
> Klein, Norbert                     NCUC               Financial Need  
>                       Economy
> Rossette, Kristina         IPC                        Financial Need  
>                       Expenses Only
> Rodenbaugh, Mike           BC                         
> Constituency 1st choice        
> Economy
> Sheppard, Philip               BC                     On Principle  
>                               Economy
> Walton, Clarke                   RyC                  
> Constituency 1st  
> choice        Economy
> 
> 2. That the level of participation that is defined in the 
> Travel policy can be met by participation in all of the 
> sessions to be scheduled by the GSNO, including the weekend 
> sessions to be held on
> 1-2 November, and that exceptions can be made for travelers 
> whose employment requirements make it difficult to arrive in 
> time for meetings on 1 Novemeber 2008.
> 
> 3. That the two GNSO council members, Ute Decker and Greg 
> Ruth, who are also members of the Nominating Committee will 
> receive transportation for the meeting and expenses starting 
> Thrusday of ICANN week as members of the Nomcom and that the 
> balance of their expenses will be covered, as the per-diem 
> rate defined by the Travel Policy, from the DNSO/GNSO funds.
>