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

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

Totally disagree with you Avri on this: "All constituencies created by
the Board are created equal."  And I believe it is inconsistent with the
Board recommendations because they explicitly emphasize that
constituencies must be representative of the group they claim to
represent and even recommend procedures to demonstrate that on a regular
basis.

Of course I along with the RyC are opposed to the entitlement mentality
as well.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 3:20 PM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] Comments in relation with GNSO travel 
> funding and policy
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>