<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16762" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=578392821-17122008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Thanks Olga. If as Doug seems to suggest that the
travel support must be allocated on a head count basis based on airfare and/or
per diem, what happens if the total head count cannot be evenly divided across
constituencies or stakeholder groups in the future? To use our current
situation as an example, what happens if there are 10 full heads (airfare + per
diem) funded for a given meeting; how would/could that be divided evenly across
six constituencies? It seems to me that it is likely that we would end up
with partial airfare and/or per diem for some individuals: 10 fully funded heads
divided by 6 = 1.67 heads per constituency; it becomes even more complicated if
some only get airfare and others only get per diem, The end result in most
cases is the same: constituencies would get partial amounts for airfare
and/or per diem, which it appears ICANN will not support.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=578392821-17122008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=578392821-17122008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>I hope I am not overly complicating this, but the proposal
below combined with Doug's feedback does not seem to be
feasible.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=578392821-17122008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=578392821-17122008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Chuck</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Olga
Cavalli<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:26 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
GNSO Council<BR><B>Subject:</B> [council] Travel policy draft and other
comments<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV><BR>Hi,<BR>In preparation for our conference call tomorrow, I am
enclosing in this email the draft text prepared by the drafting team, which
includes the suggestions made by Phillip and acceppted by some of us.<BR>There
is also a brief summary of Doug Brentīs response in relation with the request
of flexibility for fund allocation.<BR>There has not been a lot of feedback
from constituencies to this text, so am not sure if we are ready yet to draft
a motion.<BR>Looking forward to talking to you
tomorrow.<BR>Regards<BR>Olga<BR><BR>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=ES-AR></SPAN> </P>
<P><B><U><SPAN lang=EN-US>GNSO PRINCIPLES FOR ALLOCATION OF <SPAN
class=nfakpe>TRAVEL</SPAN> SUPPORT FUNDS FOR ICANN MEETING</SPAN></U></B><SPAN
lang=EN-US></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN lang=EN-US>Allocation and Control:</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN lang=EN-US>The total GNSO <SPAN class=nfakpe>Travel</SPAN> support
budget (less the amount allotted to the NCAs and GNSO Council chair) should be
divided to the extent possible on an equal basis among the GNSO
constituencies. </SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN lang=EN-US>The use of <SPAN class=nfakpe>travel</SPAN> support funds
is for <SPAN class=nfakpe>travel</SPAN> to ICANN meetings, including regional,
inter-sessional, and face-to-face working group meetings.</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN lang=EN-US>The use of <SPAN class=nfakpe>travel</SPAN> support funds
is to be solely determined by each constituency independently as it sees fit
to most effectively progress the work of the GNSO.</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN lang=EN-US>The GNSO Council has no role in deciding how these funds
are allocated<BR>to individuals.</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN lang=EN-US></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN lang=EN-US>Transparency and Reporting:</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN lang=EN-US>ICANN staff will publish the names of all those who
receive travel support together with a list of the relevant meeting(s) for
which the support was given and which were attended by the support
recipient.</SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN lang=EN-US></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><U><SPAN lang=EN-US>Highligts of the comments sent by
Doug Brent:</SPAN></U></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US>The current <SPAN
class=nfakpe>travel</SPAN> procedure talks about a certain number of people
getting <SPAN class=nfakpe>travel</SPAN> support for meetings (air and per
diem). To add some flexibility at the cost of some additional tracking, ICANN
can enable a split of that support; a certain number receiving air
reimbursement and a certain number receiving per diem support (where these
could be different people). To belabor the point for clarity, if before there
were ten total people supported for air and per diem, now perhaps five could
receive both air and per diem, five could receive air only, and five per diem
only.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US>Using this approach there will be a number
of supported people, not a fund. </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US>Then, each constituency would be allocated
some number of supported travelers.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US>If we go by number of travelers, the
variability is a budget variability that does not affect the constituency; it
will just impact the accuracy of ICANN budgeting by the staff.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
lang=EN-US></SPAN> </P><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>