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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

So you would prefer that something be budgeted to each constituency for
travel. What about Councilors - fund their travel in addition to that? 

I don't mean to be thick Philip, just trying to capture views correctly.

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 11:14 am
To: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


Tim,
it would be in yesterday's Council but in tomorrow's Council with
working groups
representing all constituencies it does not work.

Personally I'd be happy with yesterday's Council. Alas the new woprld
dictates new
obligations.
Philip

------------------
Tim wrote:
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 councillors 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