[council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09

[Alan Greenberg]

All of which follows is my understanding only.  Alan

At 18/08/2008 03:22 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:

>Well its good to see the maths has improved.
>In terms of allocation we very much need to decide who.
>I would suggest given the limited nature of this funding that it 
>applies to only elected
>Council members.
>This thus excludes nom com (who are funded by another budget),

NomCom members are explicitly fully funded according to the new 
Revised Travel Support Procedure (first sentence of 2.0 and 7th 
bullet of 2.1 - the number of people funded was explicitly increase 
above 50% to cover them). The NomCom appointee travel used to be in 
the NomCom budget, but apparently is being moved here (or at least 
the budget is presented as if it has).

>  and excludes liaisons who
>should be funded by their own base organisation's budget.

The calculation of number of people eligible for funding was 
augmented by the number of Liaisons (23 for the GNSO which only has 
21 full Councillors), so Liaisons should be eligible for funding 
under whatever rule is decided upon. But that implies the money 
cannot just be divided among constituencies and NomCom appointees. In 
my case, my current ALAC term is up at the end of the Cairo meeting. 
Since I am a full ALAC member, I need no additional funding from the 
GNSO budget for that meeting, so that money (I would guess) goes into 
the general GNSO pool.

After Cairo, but before July 2010, if I am replaced as Liaison by an 
ALAC member, there would presumably still be no need for GNSO budget. 
If I am replaced by someone not on the ALAC, that person would be 
eligible for GNSO funding (perhaps with some back-room haggling 
between the ALAC and GNSO).

If the Board follows through on its plan to cut 50% of ALAC funding 
in July 2010, the ALAC Liaison would presumably be eligible for at 
least partial funding, regardless of his/her committee status (unless 
that person was a NomCom appointee to the ALAC in which case they 
would remain fully funded).

Gee, its nice to have a simple, understandable, transparent policy.

Alan

>This seems to be the basis for the budget thinking anyway.
>Given that, then in terms of subsequent allocation that should be 
>done by constituency - the
>body best placed to determine need.
>
>There is of course an ethical dimension to the use of these 
>limited  funds that those
>parties who benefit from business opportunity as a result of ICANN 
>policy may wish to
>consider before accepting funding.
>Whether this ethical dimension applies equally to the BC - as a 
>function to our recently
>growing membership of domainers - is to my mind an interesting question.
>Philip