[council] FW: Community Travel support for Mexico City

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Forwarded From: Kevin Wilson 

=======================
GNSO Community members:

I understand a question was raised on last week's Council call
regarding per diem support in cases where ICANN hotel and airfare
support are split between two individuals applying for ICANN travel
support.  In these cases, per diems are bundled with the hotel costs.
If the hotel provides meals and in room Internet without additional
charges, the per diem will be adjusted down for those items.

Best regards,

Kevin Wilson
CFO
ICANN
Kevin.wilson@xxxxxxxxx



>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 2:42 AM
> Subject: Community Travel support Procedure for Mexico City
> To: denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Doug Brent <doug.brent@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> 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
>
>