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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

The approach Doug suggests (allocating "units" of people who get funded per
constituency rather than a budget) certainly would appear to simplify budget
calculation and handling issues for each constituency.

But the simpler solution proposed by Philip of funding a specific type of
expenditure (Philip suggests hotel fees for Counsellors) also has some
allure.

Overall, it does seem however that this issue is going back and forth but
not really making much headway. Sorry if that's a rather negative
impression, but as Tim Ruiz asked the other day: what now, how do we move
forward?

Stéphane Van Gelder


Le 15/12/08 05:25, « Doug Brent » <doug.brent@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 
> Counselors,
> cc: Kevin Wilson
> 
> Here are some comments on the travel discussion. I¹d be quite happy to join
> a call with your travel committee if there are still issues that need
> resolution, or if I can help in any way.
> 
> Much of this discussion on travel relates back to budget, but for a whole
> variety of reasons, it might be easier to focus on the number of supported
> people instead of budget dollars (and I think this could avoid some of the
> awkward outcomes Philip noted).
> 
> The current travel procedure talks about a certain number of people getting
> travel support for meetings (air and per diem). To add some flexibility (and
> to respond to a suggestion from Olga and many others) at the cost of some
> additional tracking, ICANN can enable a split of that support; a certain
> number receiving air reimbursement and a certain number receiving per diem
> support (where these could be different people). To belabor the point for
> clarity, if before there were ten total people supported for air and per
> diem, now perhaps five could receive both air and per diem, five could
> receive air only, and five per diem only.
> 
> Now, to directly respond to some of Philip's questions/comments:
> 
>> On 12/9/08 2:59 PM, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx> wrote:
> (I've snipped most of Philip's text other than his questions...don't think
> I've changed any meaning.)
> 
>> The fund pool would be determined by the total funds (less nom com and
>> Council
>> chair
>> funding).
>> So far so good.
> Using the approach described above, you'd go back to a number of supported
> people, not a fund. Then, each constituency would be allocated some number
> of supported travelers.
> 
>> ------------------
>> 1. Total GNSO Fund pool.
>> This will be uncertain and a function of the location of the GNSO nom com
>> people and Council
>> chair (ie the variable costs of air tickets and days stayed).
>> So how do you allocate?
> If we go by number of travelers, the variability is a budget variability
> that does not affect the constituency; it will just impact the accuracy of
> ICANN budgeting by the staff.
> 
>> 2. How are funds paid?
>> A lump sum to each constituency in January each year - how is it determined?
>> Or a constituency budget that is drawn against until it reaches zero? - how
>> is
>> it
>> determined? Its still a function of GNSO nom com / chair travel is it not?
> In this model, there would just be a fixed number of supported travelers, so
> again, I don't think this is a problem.
> 
>> 3. New Constituencies
>> Does each new constituency reduce the level of budget to the old
>> constituencies?
>> If NOT - is travel funding an INCENTIVE to form a new constituency ?
> This is something to get further feedback on. I saw a subsequent comment
> that perhaps there should be some time go by before a new constituency can
> get funding. In any event, perhaps this issue could be addressed in the
> upcoming review of the travel procedure.
> 
>> 4. Equal allocation by constituency
>> Does this make sense in a new stakeholder group model?
>> What of a constituency of 500 members versus a constituency of 5 ?
> This is an issue for the Supporting Organization to decide.
> 
>> Alternative
>> The more one considers these scenarios and unanticipated outcomes, the more a
>> simple
>> mechanism such as "all Council members get their hotel bills paid" in 2009
>> makes sense.
>> (And maybe ICANN will look at 2010 to also fund travel for Council members).
> While your approach is certainly reasonable and echoed by many, many also
> said that there should be no travel support, and others said that support
> should specifically consider the needs of the new working group model. The
> review of this procedure will be coming soon, with I think some kind of
> kick-off at the Mexico City meeting.
> 
> Best,
> Doug
> 
> --
> Doug Brent
> Chief Operating Officer
> ICANN
> Voice: +1 310.301.3871
> Mobile: +1 650.996.4447
> Fax: +1 310.823.8649
> 
> 
> 
>