RE: [registrars] Motion on Travel Funding

["Adrian Kinderis" <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Bruce. That is why I like Jon's idea.

Adrian Kinderis
Managing Director
AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd
Level 8, 10 Queens Road
Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004
Ph: +61 3 9866 3710
Fax: +61 3 9866 1970
Email: adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Web: www.ausregistrygroup.com

The information contained in this communication is intended for the
named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain
legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an
intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action
in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error,
please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately.



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Wednesday, 12 December 2007 2:42 AM
To: Registrars Constituency
Subject: RE: [registrars] Motion on Travel Funding


Hello Adrian,

> 
> Bruce, just to be clear, are you saying that perhaps funding 
> should only
> go to specific areas or activities (like the newTLD 
> workshops)? This is
> interesting? Who would have the authority to determine what is an
> appropriate activity?

The way it works now is that ICANN has provided the policy area with a
travel budget - under Denise Michel.   The GNSO can then seek funding
for specific activities.   The funding currently is not allocated for
attending the normal ICANN meetings.   I basically established this line
of funding while I was chair of the GNSO, through negotiation with ICANN
staff.   Note that it has not yet been called upon in the 1 Jul 07 to 30
June 08 budget - so it is essentially in reserve.   The GNSO Council is
proposing to spend it on travel for Council members to the meeting in
Delhi.

My general view is less about who decides, but more about the criteria
for decision - ie part of the operating plan and strategic plan as being
an activity that the GNSO and ICANN broadly believe is important.
Examples include new gTLDs, IDNs, and aspects of the introduction of
IPv6.

Alternatively a model similar to that proposed by Jon Nevett - would see
funds provided to the constituency - and then it is up to the
constituency to self manage.   This might be something that comes out of
the implementation of the GNSO review.   For example the registrars may
prefer to spend funds on getting a professional writer to develop
constituency position statements, or use it for an economist or lawyer
to examine specific issues.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin