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

["Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>]

Chuck,
it was these proposed edits by you that sent a shudder down my spine.
I must go and recuperate immediately ...TGIF.
Philip
--------------------------
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'.