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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

On 27 Mar 2009, at 14:50, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Thanks Avri.
>
> If we use the constituency as the basic unit of funding apportionment,
> would it then be the Council's role to decide how to do that fairly?
No, it can be done by formula:

total funding provided by ICANN divided by the number of constituencies

> That sounds like a huge challenge to me.  What does it mean to treat
> constituencies equitably?  Does every constituency get treated the  
> same
> way in apportioning funds regardless of their size or  
> representativeness
> or activity?
Yes.

_All constituencies created by the Board are created equal. _

I believe that is one of two critical principles behind having  
constituencies be Board created as opposed to SG created.  (The other   
involves avoiding the appearance/reality of incumbent prejudice in the  
creation of new constituencies.)
> What if there are a small number of constituencies in one House and a
> large number of constituencies in the other house? Is it your opinion
> that the travel funds should be distributed equally among  
> constituencies
> so that one House would receive a lot more funding?
As long as the funding is being used for participation in the work of  
the GNSO as opposed to just the funding of the council members this  
has to be the guiding principle in my view.   To do otherwise is to  
support the voice of one constituency more then the voice of the other  
constituencies.  i.e the constituency in the SG  group with one  
constituency will be able to send more of its people then the  
constituency in the SG with many constituencies.
Again I go back to my understanding of  the difference between  
constituencies and SG groups.  Constituencies are there to provide an  
organized group of like minded people with a voice and the ability to  
participate fully in the creation of gTLD policy.  SG are sector  
oriented and , at least theoretically, composed of many constituency  
with different priorities with the purpose of providing management of  
the policy process.
If the idea was just to fund council participation by council members  
then dividing it along SG lines could make sense.  And if the budget  
was limited, then yes, i believe it would make sense for the SG to  
decide which of its council members would be allowed to attend the  
meetings at registrant expense.
But the idea we have embraced as a council is that the monies are to  
be used in any way the constituency thinks best to support its work  
and its voice.  As a consequence of this the monies need, in my  
opinion, to be the equally distributed among constituencies.
a.