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

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

Thanks Tim.  Your characterized my intent well.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 11:43 AM
> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [council] Comments in relation with GNSO travel 
> funding and policy
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
>