<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:10pt">I agree with Robin.
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><BR><BR>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif">----- Original Message ----<BR>From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org><BR>Cc: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org><BR>Sent: Monday, December 3, 2007 10:27:26 AM<BR>Subject: Re: [council] Funding for travel<BR><BR><BR>I think the approach is for full support for all council members. I'm <BR>not sure that trying to divide councilors into classes of need and <BR>interest is useful in this situation.<BR><BR>The organization should simply pay for the work of the organization to <BR>be done, which means the travel costs of those expected to participate <BR>in policy meetings.<BR><BR>Robin<BR><BR><BR>Avri Doria wrote:<BR><BR>><BR>> Hi,<BR>><BR>> While I have made a request to Denise regarding support for travel <BR>> for remote locations by council members, understanding that most <BR>> every location is remote to someone, I am not
sure what direct action <BR>> we can take. I have asked for budget consideration for 2008. Does <BR>> anyone have any suggestions?<BR>><BR>> For clarification, what level of support we are asking for:<BR>><BR>> - Full support for all council members equivalent to nomcom appointee <BR>> level os support<BR>> - Full support for at least one member from each constituency<BR>> - Support on an individual need basis. As I understand it, some <BR>> participants may have already been able to get support on this basis.<BR>><BR>> One personal comment about nomcom appointee support. For the most <BR>> part nomcom appointees are outsiders brought into ICANN and are <BR>> generally not people who would have had professional interest in <BR>> ICANN had they not been brought in by the Nomcom. Speaking <BR>> personally, while a
registrant and thus a stakeholder without <BR>> constituency, ICANN was not on my list of professional activities and <BR>> thus was not something i would have chosen to spent my own income on <BR>> (i.e., I was content as an outside critic until asked to participate <BR>> from the inside). I am assuming that those in constituencies and who <BR>> become active in these constituencies have a professional or advocacy <BR>> reason for participation. I am not arguing that this disqualifies <BR>> anyone for support, but am trying to point out that there may be a <BR>> difference in consideration between nomcom appointee expenses and <BR>> constituency representative expenses. Also I do not expect that any <BR>> nomcom appointee get their income from activities relating to ICANN. <BR>> e.g, I don't. I also wonder
whether any of the constituencies <BR>> provide support for their chosen council members and whether this <BR>> should be an issue as part of the restructuring effort.<BR>><BR>> a.<BR>><BR>> On 3 dec 2007, at 09.41, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:<BR>><BR>>> I also support another direct request, and echo Ute’s comments. I <BR>>> doubt that many Councilors outside of the NomComm (who have their <BR>>> expenses paid) and the Registries and Registrars (who have ICANN <BR>>> issues central to their businesses) would be able to make the trips <BR>>> to Delhi or Africa.<BR>>><BR>>> From: <A href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org" ymailto="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">owner-council@gnso.icann.org</A> [mailto:owner- <BR>>> <A href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org" ymailto="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</A>] On Behalf Of Ute
Decker<BR>>> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 3:09 AM<BR>>> To: <A href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org" ymailto="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</A><BR>>> Subject: RE: [council] Funding for travel<BR>>><BR>>> I very much support that – ideally giving him also an idea of <BR>>> scale. I am among the many who will not be able to attend unless <BR>>> travel cost is covered and this is too important a meeting to miss <BR>>> out on.<BR>>><BR>>> From: <A href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org" ymailto="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">owner-council@gnso.icann.org</A> [mailto:owner- <BR>>> <A href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org" ymailto="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</A>] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard<BR>>> Sent: 03 December 2007 10:59<BR>>> To: <A href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org"
ymailto="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</A><BR>>> Subject: [council] Funding for travel<BR>>><BR>>> Given that Delhi will soon be upon us, and that Council travel <BR>>> funding is in the ICANN budget, (even though we have repeated this <BR>>> request in our reform submission), should we consider a direct <BR>>> request to the ICANN CEO to authorise release of funds for Delhi ?<BR>>><BR>>> Philip<BR>>><BR>>><BR>><BR>><BR><BR></DIV><BR></DIV></div></body></html>