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

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

If the fact that we are moving to a working group model is Philip's
concern, then maybe in doesn't make sense to focus on funding
Councilors.  In my edits I was simply trying to stay with that approach.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 12:15 PM
> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [council] Comments in relation with GNSO travel 
> funding and policy
> 
> 
> 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 
> 
>