RE: [council] Travel policy draft and other comments

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

A principle that I learned as a manager many years ago is this: don't make 
decisions that have negative consequences if the only reason is for 
administrative convenience.  Frankly, it seems to me that that is what ICANN 
staff members are doing on this issue. 

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 8:51 AM
> To: Jordi Iparraguirre; 'Council GNSO'
> Subject: Re: [council] Travel policy draft and other comments
> 
> 
> The question I keep on asking myself is why do we have to 
> complicate things even further?
> 
> There was an initial proposal to allocate a set amount of 
> money to each constituency. That makes it simple: each 
> constituency gets the same and does with it what they want.
> 
> Now we have this proposal to decide on a set number of people 
> who will benefit from support instead. I understand from 
> Doug's explanations that it might help simplify some budget 
> issues, but as Chuck and Philip have pointed out, it also 
> complicates other aspects of this whole thing for reasons 
> which some of us might not have initially seen.
> 
> That's fine. So if that's the case why not just stick with 
> the "we have a total amount X for travel support for the GNSO 
> and we divide that by the number of constituencies"?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stéphane Van Gelder
> 
> 
> Le 18/12/08 11:09, « Jordi Iparraguirre » <ipa@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> 
> > 
> > Thanks Olga for compiling it.
> > 
> > some proposals:
> > 
> > 1-What about including a deadline or set of conditions beyond which 
> > these principles become derogated and a new ones have to be set ?
> > With all the changes we are about to face, I think it's 
> worth we set a 
> > self imposed review of the procedure, or even better, set 
> the maximum 
> > duration of these princpiles.
> > 
> > 2- I understand that if a constituency does not use the allocated 
> > budget, this is not lost, nor transferred to other 
> constituencies, but 
> > saved. Is this right ?
> > 
> > 3- following Chuck's question (1,67 heads per 
> constituency), in case 
> > of non natural numbers dividing budget by people, I'd 
> propose to round 
> > it down. Then, each constituency may add the amount they 
> wish to fly 
> > as many people as constituency budget can support.
> > 
> > 4- is there a limit on the number of total subsidized people ?
> > That is, the limit seems to be the allocated budget, but is there a 
> > limit on that ?  Or will GNSO ask for more and more money 
> to fly for 
> > free more and more people each time ?
> > 
> > 
> > I propose to set these limits. We are using registrants' money for 
> > that purpose and besides transparency we need to provide clear 
> > accountability and check and balance processes.
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks
> > jordi
> > 
> > 
> > En/na Olga Cavalli ha escrit:
> >> 
> >> Hi,
> >> In preparation for our conference call tomorrow, I am enclosing in 
> >> this email the draft text prepared by the drafting team, which 
> >> includes the suggestions made by Phillip and acceppted by 
> some of us.
> >> There is also a brief summary of Doug Brent´s response in relation 
> >> with the request of flexibility for fund allocation.
> >> There has not been a lot of feedback from constituencies to this 
> >> text, so am not sure if we are ready yet to draft a motion.
> >> Looking forward to talking to you tomorrow.
> >> Regards
> >> Olga
> >> 
> >>  
> >> 
> >> *_GNSO PRINCIPLES FOR ALLOCATION OF TRAVEL SUPPORT FUNDS FOR ICANN 
> >> MEETING_*
> >> 
> >> Allocation and Control:
> >> 
> >> The total GNSO Travel support budget (less the amount 
> allotted to the 
> >> NCAs and GNSO Council chair) should be divided to the 
> extent possible 
> >> on an equal basis among the GNSO constituencies.
> >> 
> >> The use of travel support funds is for travel to ICANN meetings, 
> >> including regional, inter-sessional, and face-to-face 
> working group 
> >> meetings.
> >> 
> >> The use of travel support funds is to be solely determined by each 
> >> constituency independently as it sees fit to most effectively 
> >> progress the work of the GNSO.
> >> 
> >> The GNSO Council has no role in deciding how these funds are 
> >> allocated to individuals.
> >> 
> >> Transparency and Reporting:
> >> 
> >> ICANN staff will publish the names of all those who receive travel 
> >> support together with a list of the relevant meeting(s) 
> for which the 
> >> support was given and which were attended by the support recipient.
> >> 
> >>  
> >> 
> >> *_Highligts of the comments sent by Doug Brent:_*
> >> 
> >> The current travel procedure talks about a certain number 
> of people 
> >> getting travel support for meetings (air and per diem). To 
> add some 
> >> flexibility 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.
> >> 
> >> Using this approach there will be a number of supported 
> people, not a fund.
> >> 
> >> Then, each constituency would be allocated some number of 
> supported 
> >> travelers.
> >> 
> >> 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.
> >> 
> >>  
> >> 
> >> 
> 
> 
> 
>