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

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

Why?
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
        Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 12:22 PM
        To: 'GNSO Council'
        Subject: RE: [council] Comments in relation with GNSO travel
funding and policy
        
        
        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'.