<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000; font-size:10pt;"><div>The difference in the vote in question and what Philip puts forward below is that some potentially ex-Councilors may be voting on personally receiving payment for travel to Seoul. That is not the same as appointed/elected Councilors voting as representatives of their constituencies on policy issues that affect that constituency as a whole.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If the vote in question was about funding Councilors, that also may be different. But it is about funding ex-Councilors and IMO that creates a personal benefit to an individual. I know there is the issue of timing as Kristina pointed out. There likely isn't an easy answer, which is why I believe we should not be voting on this at all.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I would also request that Staff take up this issue with Kevin and let us know if we are just wasting our time. If a consensus or a majority of Councilors/ex-Councilors is not going to sway ICANN to increase funding then perhaps we can all be saved from spending more time on an already lost cause.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Tim </div>
<div> </div>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: verdana" webmail="1">
<div >-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: [council] Dealing with conflicts<BR>From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be><BR>Date: Fri, August 14, 2009 7:35 am<BR>To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@gnso.icann.org><BR><BR><BR><BR>I will gladly abstain from a vote related to a conflict on travel if I hear an<BR>undertaking from the contract parties they will cease to vote on all future<BR>issues that may affect their own contracts.<BR><BR>Philip<BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></span></body></html>