Re: [council] Community Travel support Procedure for Mexico City

[Doug Brent <doug.brent@xxxxxxxxx>]

Carlos and Council,

Sorry. I thought the issue of budget allocation was discussed directly with
the travel committee and understood, and as noted before, I'd be happy to
discuss this with relevant counselors at any time. Short answer: we have not
identified a way to allocate a budget to a Supporting Organization or
Constituency. Let me explain.

As I've discussed with several people, my personal view is that often the
best decisions are made by the people closest to the work, so why not just
allocate a budget?

There is a balance point that makes this travel issue awkward since there is
no  clear chain of  fiduciary responsibility (in the corporate sense) at the
Supporting Organizations level. ICANN has a fiduciary responsibility to
establish a process for controlled allocation of expenditures under business
laws, particularly as a tax-exempt organization. There is no easy way to
implement what appears "obvious" - just give organizations a budget to
spend.

Financial controls are required to remain consistent with taxation rules for
businesses.  Resource allocation in all instances should follow pre-defined
controlled processes as a way to prove ICANN has control over the kinds of
business ills - including financial mismanagement and worse - that we read
about in the papers these days. That's why the community travel support
approach is essentially a pre-approved expense reimbursement plan.

I hope that provides some additional clarity behind the rationale, and would
Still like to see how we can put more flexibility into travel support while
maintaining appropriate controls this for next fiscal year. Perhaps a
meeting with the travel committee, including ICANN's CFO Kevin Wilson who
will be taking on this work on the staff side, and other interested
councilors in Mexico City would be a good next step.

Thanks,
Doug
--
Doug Brent
Chief Operating Officer
ICANN
Voice: +1 310.301.3871
Mobile: +1 650.996.4447
Fax: +1 310.823.8649



On 1/9/09 4:48 AM, "Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza" <caffsouza@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> This is something that we have been discussing at NCUC. It would be nice to
> have some input on the eventual refusal of resolution 2 and, most what is more
> important, to let the council know the reasons why one system for allocating
> funds for travel expenses was chosen and not the one indicated in the GNSO
> motion. Such input would surely give us more information and grounds to
> decide on how to best react to the travel support procedure.
> 
> Thank you,
> Carlos
> 
> 2009/1/9 Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
>> Denise, 
>> further to our Council discussion yesterday could you please elicit a
>> response to resolution 2 of the Council motion on travel support passed at
>> our December 18 meeting?
>> This is Council's response re Mexico City and the deadlines you referenced.
>> Many thanks.
>> Philip
>> -------------------
>> 
>> Whereas:
>> Council welcomes the fact that ICANN have allocated some funds for GNSO
>> travel.
>> 
>> 1. Council regrets that the current proposal imposes administrative
>> difficulty and may thus reduce the total budget available.
>> 
>> 2. Council calls upon ICANN staff to nominate by 15 January 2009 a fixed sum
>> for fiscal year 2009  that will be granted to each of the constituencies
>> currently recognised under the ICANN by-laws of 29 May 2008. Such sum should
>> exclude any budget to cover the costs of nom com delegates or GNSO chair
>> travel.
>> 
>> 3. Council requests Constituencies to 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.
>> 
>> The motion unanimously passed by voice vote
>