Re: [council] Old DNSO funds and this year's travel.

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

Chuck,

I don't think that's what the drafting team is saying. All we've said is
that slots should be allocated to the constituencies so that they are all
able to fund their councillors fully if they want. It's then up to each
constituency how to best use those slots.

So what that might mean is that each constituency gets 3 slots per meeting
(the same as the number of councillors) and then decides to fund two
councillors and one working group member for example.

I also think it's important to understand that the work the drafting team as
a whole has produced is not the reflection of any one single constituency
interest. Obviously, individual drafting team members have put forward their
constituency's views (the RyC is represented), and this is the way we have
built up the positions we have come up with, in an attempt to reach
consensus and best represent the wide variety of views on travel funding
that exist.

Thanks,

Stéphane


Le 24/03/09 15:09, « Gomes, Chuck » <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 
> The RyC would just request that funding not be restricted to Councilors only.
> 
> Chuck 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 9:57 AM
>> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: [council] Old DNSO funds and this year's travel.
>> 
>> 
>> That was more or less the position of the RrC as well. But
>> since the majority of the Council decided otherwise, the
>> Travel Funding Drafting Team is just trying to figure out how
>> to distribute the available funds as fairly as possible.
>> 
>> Tim  
>>  
>>   -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: RE: [council] Old DNSO funds and this year's travel.
>> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Tue, March 24, 2009 8:30 am
>> To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>,
>> <avri@xxxxxxx>, "GNSO Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> 
>> 
>> The RyC has always opposed travel funding be restricted to Councilors
>> and still holds that position.
>> 
>> From a philosophical point of view, it is quite interesting
>> how easy it
>> is for people to spend money contributed by others. That is one of the
>> reasons the RyC supported the approach that each Constituency fund
>> travel for itself rather than using ICANN funds to subsidize it except
>> in cases of demonstrated need. There is a clear motivation to be good
>> stewards of our own funds that sometimes is not so strong
>> when using the
>> funds that come from other sources.
>> 
>> I am not going to belabor this.
>> 
>> Chuck 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 6:33 AM
>>> To: Gomes, Chuck; avri@xxxxxxx; GNSO Council
>>> Subject: Re: [council] Old DNSO funds and this year's travel.
>>> 
>>> Hi Chuck,
>>> 
>>> I have to side with Avri on this one ;-) Sounds like doing
>>> such historical digging is asking for a lot of work with no
>>> clear purpose.
>>> The only question we should be asking ourselves, IMO, is the
>>> one Avri asked:
>>> are we OK for these funds to be used to ensure that all
>>> councillors get funded in 09 or not.
>>> As I was unaware that these funds even existed, I would like
>>> to know to what other use they might be put before giving my
>>> answer. If it turns out the funds were just "sitting there"
>>> and would not be used for anything else anyway, then by all
>>> means let's use them to help fund people.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Stéphane
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Le 24/03/09 01:30, « Gomes, Chuck » <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I was not suggesting anything about how the funds would
>> be used but 
>>>> only that the additional information could be helpful for
>>>> constituencies to have in making any decisions regarding
>>> the use of the funds.
>>>> 
>>>> Chuck
>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>>>>> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:59 PM
>>>>> To: GNSO Council
>>>>> Subject: RE: [council] Old DNSO funds and this year's travel.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am not sure what productive purpose such a exercise
>>> would achieve.
>>>>> Are you suggesting that the money should be distributed
>>> according to 
>>>>> donation proportionality? I think that might be
>>> counter-productive
>>>>> especially when what I was hoping to achieve was
>>> sufficient funds for
>>>>> all constituencies to send their participants to Sydney.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I did not get the impression that proportional
>>> distribution was the
>>>>> motivation behind Phillip's comment. Rather I understood
>>> him to be 
>>>>> pointing to the fact that the BC, coincidentally along
>>> with the NCUC, 
>>>>> and ISPC could, at the moment only provide support for 1
>>> participant 
>>>>> in Sydney.
>>>>> 
>>>>> a.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 14:39 -0400, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>>>>>> I wouldn't think it would be that difficult to go back
>>> and find out 
>>>>>> what the various constituencies contributed to the fund.
>>>>> As I recall
>>>>>> various constituencies did not contribute the same amounts
>>>>> and I think
>>>>>> that they may like to know that information before making a
>>>>> decision
>>>>>> on how the funds are used. Philip's comment caused me to
>>>>> think in that direction:
>>>>>> "As much of this money came from the BC in the first
>>> place, I find 
>>>>>> this a positive suggestion."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Chuck
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 2:05 PM
>>>>>>> To: GNSO Council
>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [council] Old DNSO funds and this year's travel.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Are you suggesting we do such historical digging? I am
>>>>> not sure to
>>>>>>> what purpose. Are you suggesting we subdivide it according to
>>>>>>> contribution?
>>>>>>> I would find that difficult and possibly quite
>>>>> contentious at this
>>>>>>> point.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> a.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 09:50 -0400, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>>>>>>>> Would it be possible to prepare a brief report that shows
>>>>>>> the source
>>>>>>>> of the funds by constituency as well as the total funds
>>>>> available?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Chuck
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>>> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:33 AM
>>>>>>>>> To: GNSO Council
>>>>>>>>> Subject: [council] Old DNSO funds and this year's travel.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I was wondering whether there would be general
>> support in the 
>>>>>>>>> council for using the monies in this account to
>>>>> supplement the
>>>>>>>>> travel budget to Sydney and to Seoul in order to allow
>>>>>>> all current
>>>>>>>>> constituencies who wish to send 3 participants
>>>>> (Councilors, WG
>>>>>>>>> participants, SC ...) .
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> While we are asking for better funding in future
>>>>> years, we can
>>>>>>>>> be fairly certain that we will not get a raise in support
>>>>>>> for 2009. It
>>>>>>>>> may make sense to use these funds for that purpose -
>>>>> i have been
>>>>>>>>> asked why we are holding on to the money in a time when
>>>>>>> we need more
>>>>>>>>> support.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> If there is general support, I would like to ask the
>>>>>>> Travel DT to
>>>>>>>>> figure out how to make this allocation and then to bring
>>>>>>> a motion to
>>>>>>>>> the council.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> a.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>