[council] Funding for travel

Robin Gross robin at ipjustice.org
Mon Dec 3 18:27:26 UTC 2007

I think the approach is for full support for all council members.  I'm 
not sure that trying to divide councilors into classes of need and 
interest is useful in this situation.

The organization should simply pay for the work of the organization to 
be done, which means the travel costs of those expected to participate 
in policy meetings.


Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
> While I have made a request to Denise regarding support for travel  
> for remote locations by council members, understanding that most  
> every location is remote to someone, I am not sure what direct action  
> we can take.  I have asked for budget consideration for 2008.  Does  
> anyone have any suggestions?
> For clarification, what level of support we are asking for:
> - Full support for all council members equivalent to nomcom appointee  
> level os support
> - Full support for at least one member from each constituency
> - Support on an individual need basis.  As I understand it, some  
> participants may have already been able to get support on this basis.
> One personal comment about nomcom appointee support.  For the most  
> part nomcom appointees are outsiders brought into ICANN and are  
> generally not people who would have had professional interest in  
> ICANN had they not been brought in by the Nomcom.  Speaking  
> personally,  while a registrant and thus a stakeholder without  
> constituency, ICANN was not on my list of professional activities and  
> thus was not  something i would have chosen to spent my own income on  
> (i.e., I was content as an outside critic until  asked to participate  
> from the inside).  I am assuming that those in constituencies and who  
> become active in these constituencies have a professional or advocacy  
> reason for participation.  I am not arguing that this disqualifies  
> anyone for support, but am trying to point out that there may be a  
> difference in consideration between nomcom appointee expenses and  
> constituency representative expenses.  Also I do not expect that any  
> nomcom appointee get their income from activities relating to ICANN.  
> e.g, I don't.  I also wonder whether any of the constituencies  
> provide support for their chosen council members and whether this  
> should be an issue as part of the restructuring effort.
> a.
> On 3 dec 2007, at 09.41, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
>> I also support another direct request, and echo Ute’s comments.  I  
>> doubt that many Councilors outside of the NomComm (who have their  
>> expenses paid) and the Registries and Registrars (who have ICANN  
>> issues central to their businesses) would be able to make the trips  
>> to Delhi or Africa.
>> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- 
>> council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ute Decker
>> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 3:09 AM
>> To: council at gnso.icann.org
>> Subject: RE: [council] Funding for travel
>> I very much support that – ideally giving him also an idea of  
>> scale.  I am among the many who will not be able to attend unless  
>> travel cost is covered and this is too important a meeting to miss  
>> out on.
>> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- 
>> council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
>> Sent: 03 December 2007 10:59
>> To: council at gnso.icann.org
>> Subject: [council] Funding for travel
>> Given that Delhi will soon be upon us, and that Council travel  
>> funding is in the ICANN budget, (even though we have repeated this  
>> request in our reform submission), should we consider a direct  
>> request to the ICANN CEO to authorise release of funds for Delhi ?
>> Philip

More information about the council mailing list