[council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09

[Alan Greenberg]

Reading the recent exchanges, it strikes me that the formal policy is 
somewhat at odds with the PDP methodology that ICANN is trying to 
institutionalize.

The travel documents says "While the calculation of travel support 
funding is based in part on the size of each council and its 
liaisons, the SO can choose to support other constituency members 
based on what will best serve each SO's policy development work, e.g. 
working group members could be supported."

At the same time, we are being told that WG's are the way to get the 
REAL work done. So if we are really effective, and just oversee the 
processes, and have lots of active, functioning WGs, we are faced 
with the choice of taking little travel money for Council itself, or 
telling our hard-working WG chairs and members, that they are largely 
on their own regarding funding.

ICANN has formally adopted the BGC recommendations to move forcefully 
to a WG model for policy development; it seems strange that at the 
same instant, they are saying that there will be no funding unless 
Council is willing to give up some of the travel funding that, as 
Robin points out, started with the difficulty of some Councillors to 
attend ICANN meetings.

It seems like a strange mixture of messages.

Alan



At 19/08/2008 03:06 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

>An even split for Cairo may make sense. But WG efforts *are* an intregal
>part of the policy process, and the goal of the funding is to broaden
>participation in policy processes. So why wouldn't the WGs fall under
>that?
>
>My thinking was that as we move more fully to the WG model, finding good
>WG Chairs will be a challenge. The prospect of travel funding for ICANN
>meetings may prove to be an incentive. If we want some rules around
>that, that would make sense - not for Chairs who are also Councilors,
>not for Chairs who represent a constituency member, or whatever.
>
>And for the record, I would not accept travel assistance for myself.
>
>Tim
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for
>FY09
>From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>Date: Tue, August 19, 2008 1:47 pm
>To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>
>Cc: Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org>
>
>No one has said Councilors are more important.
>
>
>It was my understanding that we weren't funding "people" per se, but
>specific "roles" within the ICANN policy development process.  If you
>want to change it so we are funding the people that we think are
>contributing the most, that is another story, and we can certainly have
>that conversation.   But we should be clear what we are doing - right
>now it just looks like a "grab bag" has opened up.
>
>
>Robin
>
>
>
>On Aug 19, 2008, at 11:34 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
>I think we have to be careful about thinking of ourselves as more
>important as Councilors than other GNSO members.  If someone is devoting
>considerable time to GNSO work regardless whether they are on the
>Council or not we should recognize that and help to meet their travel
>needs if possible.
>
>Chuck
>
>From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org]
>On Behalf Of Robin Gross
>Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 2:08 PM
>To: Greg Ruth
>Cc: Council GNSO
>Subject: Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for
>FY09
>
>
>
>I agree with Greg.  What began as a process to ensure councilors could
>participate at council meetings has turned into something else entirely.
>
>
>Robin
>
>
>
>
>
>On Aug 19, 2008, at 10:50 AM, Greg Ruth wrote:
>
>Basically, I disagree with the notion that some of the travel funding
>should be allocated to constituencies and some should be earmarked to
>support WG chairs.  I believe the original intent was not to progress WG
>efforts, but rather to make sure that all stakeholders (constituencies)
>have an *equal* opportunity to participate.  (I would think that a
>responsible WG chair should have been sure of his/her ability to
>participate *before* accepting the position.)  Therefore, I am in favor
>of dividing the funding more or less equally among the consituencies and
>letting each decide how it can best support representation at ICANN
>meetings.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>IP JUSTICE
>Robin Gross, Executive Director
>1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>IP JUSTICE
>Robin Gross, Executive Director
>1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org