Re: [registrars] Motion on Travel Funding

[Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 11-Dec-07, at 9:51 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:

> ICANN's budget won't ever get lowered nor fees reduced - that is my
> executive mind speaking. You make sure you spend your budget - period.
> Otherwise you are "open for negotiation" at the following fiscal year!
Then you can't make the point that fees won't increase. The money has  
to come from somewhere. If they follow the budgeting process you've  
described, its not like they will be slashing some other program to  
make room for Councillor travel.
I'd also point out that fees were reduced last year.

> My point is simply that, if it was indeed a good idea fund the GNSO or
> GNSO activities it would be worthwhile expenditure of the budget. As I
> said, there are many areas you could draw it from. I won't detail them
> here, but will assist come budget time (next time round). They are
> running a surplus at the moment...
...but its not a good idea. How can funding representatives from some  
of the largest companies and associations in the world even be  
considered as a good idea. Furthermore, if ICANN is running a surplus,  
perhaps that should be reflected in a further reduced fee - not spent  
on jet fuel flying Councillors around the world to meetings that they  
would attend anyways.
> Ross, why didn't you comment on the Nominating Committee (and instead
> focussed on the Board) or am I wrong in assuming they are funded?

I picked this up in a prior message. From what I understand, funding  
for NC representatives is very limited.
Ross Rader
Director, Retail Services
t. 416.538.5492
c. 416.828.8783
http://www.domaindirect.com

"To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow."
- Erik Nupponen