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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Philip,

I didn't take Chuck's comments to mean constituencies were not
legitimate, or shouldn't have equitable treatment. And that certainly
isn't the DT's intent.

What we were trying to get to is that the amount of funding should be
based on the number of councilors. So under the bicameral model, if a
stakeholder group has six councilors they get enough travel funding for
six participants. How those funds are divided up within the stakeholder
group should be left to them (it all goes for the councilors, evenly
distributed to the constituencies, etc.).

Is that acceptable in your view?


Tim 
  
  -------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] Comments in relation with GNSO travel funding
and policy
From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
Date: Fri, March 27, 2009 10:12 am
To: "'GNSO Council'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

 The BC profoundly objects to the proposed change of "constituencies" to
"stakeholder groups" suggested by the RyC.
 
Any new constituency must be approved by the Board.
It is therefore legitimate.
It therefore deserves equitable treatment.
 
Philip