[council] Comments in relation with GNSO travel funding and policy
Gomes, Chuck
cgomes at verisign.com
Fri Mar 27 18:56:56 UTC 2009
Why?
Chuck
________________________________
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 12:22 PM
To: 'GNSO Council'
Subject: RE: [council] Comments in relation with GNSO travel
funding and policy
Chuck,
it was these proposed edits by you that sent a shudder down my
spine.
I must go and recuperate immediately ...TGIF.
Philip
--------------------------
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'.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20090327/ba3767fc/attachment.html>
More information about the council
mailing list