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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

I must be thick as well because I'm not sure I understand what Philip means
either.

The only approach that seems viable to me for the new Council is the one
sketched out by Tim in his email IMO. But once again, I may be missing
Philip's point...

Stéphane


Le 27/03/09 17:32, « Tim Ruiz » <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 
> 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
> 
>