RE: [council] Comments in relation with GNSO travel funding and policy

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

My apologies for the delay in submitting some comments.  My personal comments 
are below.  I will provide any additional comments from the RyC later, if any.
 
I should qualify my comments by pointing out the RyC's position has 
consistently been that travel funding should be provided within budget 
limitations for those who are active participants, not just Councilors, who 
otherwise would not be able to participate in-person.  That said, I recognize 
that the majority of the Council has a different view about that and hence, in 
response to the majority view, I submit my personal comments.
 
There are two general themes behind my suggested edits: 1) Travel funding 
should not be restricted to Councilor, a view that I believe is consistent with 
the DT's position; 2) recommendations for travel funding beyond Sydney should 
be worded in a way that is consistent with the new bicameral model and 
therefore should focus on stakeholder groups, not constituencies.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli
        Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 9:51 PM
        To: GNSO Council
        Cc: Olga Cavalli; Glen de Saint Géry
        Subject: [council] Comments in relation with GNSO travel funding and 
policy
        
        
        Hi,
        
        The Travel Drafting Team met with ICANN Staff in México ( Kevin Wilson, 
Doug Brent and Stacy Hoffberg).
        
        What we agreed during the meeting was that GNSO would prepare a 
document with those ideas and requirements that GNSO has in relation with 
travel funding and travel policy. They expressed that this information could be 
very useful for them.
        
        The drafted text is included in this email for your revision.
        
        Your comments are welcome, then we will submit it to the ICANN staff 
members that were present in the meeting.
        
        Best regards
        
        Olga
        
        
        
        Comments about GNSO Travel funding and travel policy
        

        All GNSO council members should be founded to attend ICANN 
meetings.[Gomes, Chuck]  Minor edit: change 'founded' to 'funded'.  I would 
also suggest that this be changed to something like the following: "Travel 
funding should be provided for GNSO participants sufficient to cover full 
travel costs for the total number of GNSO Council members."  I believe the 
rewording provides more flexibility for Stakeholder Groups to allocate travel 
funds to SG participants whether they be Councilors or WG members or others who 
are active in GNSO activities and this is consistent with other recommendations 
below.

        All council members volunteer their time and the GNSO amount of work is 
a lot.[Gomes, Chuck]  Note that it is not just Councilors who volunteer their 
time.  And others besides Councilors volunteer significant time (e.g., WG 
chairs, WG members, etc.), so I would change 'council members' to 'GNSO 
participants'. 

        The amount of work in GNSO is highly increasing due to the GNSO 
restructuring and the different steering committees and working groups that 
council member´s participate in.[Gomes, Chuck]  Again, I would change 'council 
members' to 'GNSO participants'. 

        GNSO must undergo restructuring and this enormous task is unbudgeted 
and no additional resource is allocated for this purpose.  Hence, extended 
travel funding especially in this period
        is required. If there is additional work, then there is a need for 
additional funding resources.
        

        The workload of the GNSO is, at least in these times, enormous and it 
would be unrealistic for the structures to work by volunteers being stretched 
beyond limits especially without travel support. This support may include WG 
and DT members as the Constituencies may nominate.

        It could be good if constituencies receive the travel funds and they 
distribute these funds among their members with flexibility.[Gomes, Chuck]  
Looking forward, I think we should change 'constituencies' to 'stakeholder 
groups'. 

        The budgeted amount for GNSO should be monetized and divided equally 
between Constituencies (possibly SGs if there is a proliferation of 
Constituencies).[Gomes, Chuck]  The way this is worded, it result in a 
stakeholder group with lots of constituencies getting most of the funds while 
those with few constituencies receiving few funds.  In other words, it would be 
possible for a bunch of small constituencies to receive more travel funding 
than a large constituency that may represent many more stakeholders than the 
group of small constituencies.  I suspect that that was not the intent, so I 
suggest changing 'Constituencies' to 'stakeholder groups'. 

        Constituency allocation should be transparent but at the discretion of 
the Constituency.[Gomes, Chuck]   I would change 'Constituency' in both cases 
to 'stakeholder group'. 

        If in one Financial Year a Constituency does not utilize and saves its 
allocation, that allocation should be reserved and rolled over into travel 
reserves for the next FY in addition to the budget allocation for the 
next.[Gomes, Chuck]   I would change 'Constituency' to 'stakeholder group'.

        A growth in the active participation of ALL GNSO Councilors in ICANN 
meetings may enhance the face to face work of GNSO making it more efficient and 
also it may also benefit the work on teleconference meetings.[Gomes, Chuck]  I 
suggest changing 'ALL GNSO Councilors in ICANN meetings' to 'ALL GNSO 
Councilors and other GNSO participants in ICANN meetings and other GNSO 
in-person activities'.   

        It may also benefit the participation by a broader spectrum of the GNSO 
community. 

        Travel funding should not impact registrar or registry fees. 

        According to the proposed budget documents, ICANN expects revenues that 
will be $13 million "in excess" of ICANN's budget for FY10.[Gomes, Chuck ]  
Does this ignore contributions to a reserve fund?  If so, maybe it should be 
reconsidered or reworded. 

        A rough estimate of the extra cost of funding all councilors' funding 
for next year is $200K.[Gomes, Chuck]  I would change 'all councilors' funding' 
to 'funding for the equivalent of all Councilors'.

        It could be useful to know a detailed breakdown of the GNSO travel 
support budget.

        Also it could help knowing the travel support provided to the GNSO 
today and the monetary amount of travel support for ALL GNSO Councilors.[Gomes, 
Chuck]   I suggest replacing 'ALL GNSO Councilors' with 'the equivalent of all 
GNSO Councilors'.