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

[Gomes, Chuck]

My apologies for the delay in submitting some comments.  My personal comments are below.  I will provide any additional comments from the RyC later, if any.
 
I should qualify my comments by pointing out the RyC's position has consistently been that travel funding should be provided within budget limitations for those who are active participants, not just Councilors, who otherwise would not be able to participate in-person.  That said, I recognize that the majority of the Council has a different view about that and hence, in response to the majority view, I submit my personal comments.
 
There are two general themes behind my suggested edits: 1) Travel funding should not be restricted to Councilor, a view that I believe is consistent with the DT's position; 2) recommendations for travel funding beyond Sydney should be worded in a way that is consistent with the new bicameral model and therefore should focus on stakeholder groups, not constituencies.
 
Chuck


________________________________

	From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli
	Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 9:51 PM
	To: GNSO Council
	Cc: Olga Cavalli; Glen de Saint Géry
	Subject: [council] Comments in relation with GNSO travel funding and policy
	
	
	Hi,
	
	The Travel Drafting Team met with ICANN Staff in México ( Kevin Wilson, Doug Brent and Stacy Hoffberg).
	
	What we agreed during the meeting was that GNSO would prepare a document with those ideas and requirements that GNSO has in relation with travel funding and travel policy. They expressed that this information could be very useful for them.
	
	The drafted text is included in this email for your revision.
	
	Your comments are welcome, then we will submit it to the ICANN staff members that were present in the meeting.
	
	Best regards
	
	Olga
	
	
	
	Comments about GNSO Travel funding and travel policy
	

	All GNSO council members should be founded to attend ICANN meetings.[Gomes, Chuck]  Minor edit: change 'founded' to 'funded'.  I would also suggest that this be changed to something like the following: "Travel funding should be provided for GNSO participants sufficient to cover full travel costs for the total number of GNSO Council members."  I believe the rewording provides more flexibility for Stakeholder Groups to allocate travel funds to SG participants whether they be Councilors or WG members or others who are active in GNSO activities and this is consistent with other recommendations below.

	All council members volunteer their time and the GNSO amount of work is a lot.[Gomes, Chuck]  Note that it is not just Councilors who volunteer their time.  And others besides Councilors volunteer significant time (e.g., WG chairs, WG members, etc.), so I would change 'council members' to 'GNSO participants'. 

	The amount of work in GNSO is highly increasing due to the GNSO restructuring and the different steering committees and working groups that council member´s participate in.[Gomes, Chuck]  Again, I would change 'council members' to 'GNSO participants'. 

	GNSO must undergo restructuring and this enormous task is unbudgeted and no additional resource is allocated for this purpose.  Hence, extended travel funding especially in this period
	is required. If there is additional work, then there is a need for additional funding resources.
	

	The workload of the GNSO is, at least in these times, enormous and it would be unrealistic for the structures to work by volunteers being stretched beyond limits especially without travel support. This support may include WG and DT members as the Constituencies may nominate.

	It could be good if constituencies receive the travel funds and they distribute these funds among their members with flexibility.[Gomes, Chuck]  Looking forward, I think we should change 'constituencies' to 'stakeholder groups'. 

	The budgeted amount for GNSO should be monetized and divided equally between Constituencies (possibly SGs if there is a proliferation of Constituencies).[Gomes, Chuck]  The way this is worded, it result in a stakeholder group with lots of constituencies getting most of the funds while those with few constituencies receiving few funds.  In other words, it would be possible for a bunch of small constituencies to receive more travel funding than a large constituency that may represent many more stakeholders than the group of small constituencies.  I suspect that that was not the intent, so I suggest changing 'Constituencies' to 'stakeholder groups'. 

	Constituency allocation should be transparent but at the discretion of the Constituency.[Gomes, Chuck]   I would change 'Constituency' in both cases to 'stakeholder group'. 

	If in one Financial Year a Constituency does not utilize and saves its allocation, that allocation should be reserved and rolled over into travel reserves for the next FY in addition to the budget allocation for the next.[Gomes, Chuck]   I would change 'Constituency' to 'stakeholder group'.

	A growth in the active participation of ALL GNSO Councilors in ICANN meetings may enhance the face to face work of GNSO making it more efficient and also it may also benefit the work on teleconference meetings.[Gomes, Chuck]  I suggest changing 'ALL GNSO Councilors in ICANN meetings' to 'ALL GNSO Councilors and other GNSO participants in ICANN meetings and other GNSO in-person activities'.   

	It may also benefit the participation by a broader spectrum of the GNSO community. 

	Travel funding should not impact registrar or registry fees. 

	According to the proposed budget documents, ICANN expects revenues that will be $13 million "in excess" of ICANN's budget for FY10.[Gomes, Chuck ]  Does this ignore contributions to a reserve fund?  If so, maybe it should be reconsidered or reworded. 

	A rough estimate of the extra cost of funding all councilors' funding for next year is $200K.[Gomes, Chuck]  I would change 'all councilors' funding' to 'funding for the equivalent of all Councilors'.

	It could be useful to know a detailed breakdown of the GNSO travel support budget.

	Also it could help knowing the travel support provided to the GNSO today and the monetary amount of travel support for ALL GNSO Councilors.[Gomes, Chuck]   I suggest replacing 'ALL GNSO Councilors' with 'the equivalent of all GNSO Councilors'.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20090326/6cf4428d/attachment.html>