[council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Just one clarification.  As I am an NCA, I do not believe my support  
as chair needs to come out of the 10.


a.

On 19 Aug 2008, at 11:34, Tim Ruiz wrote:

>
> I don't really think there are any errors, although I agree that the
> document could have included some additional information that may have
> clarified.
>
> In any case, my proposal for Cairo would be the same. Allow at least  
> one
> spot per constituency and let them decide how to allocate it. The ACs
> take care of their own as instructed in the policy, and per the policy
> the liaisons are covered outside of the 10 additional spots.
>
> That would be six for the Constituencies, one for the GNSO Chair, and
> three for the Council as a whole to decide.
>
> But regardless of how we do it, basing it on supporting Councilors who
> simply say they would/could not otherwise attend is not appropriate.  
> Let
> the Constituencies decide if they want to support one of their
> Councilors' travel, or someone else they feel is important to have
> there. I propose that the two or three spots left should not to go
> Councilors but instead be considered for the Chairs of the WGs first,
> and then to others the Chairs of the WGs might suggest would be good  
> to
> have in Cairo to the benefit of their policy work.
>
>
> Tim
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for
> FY09
> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> Date: Tue, August 19, 2008 8:54 am
> To: "'Council GNSO'" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>
>
> Tim, I prefixed my comments saying that this is how I read it. As
> Avri has pointed out, our first priority is to handle Cairo and for
> that meeting the issues of Liaisons is moot.
>
> In any case, my rationale is not built solely on the numbers (I have
> already found and reported two errors there). The first column
> explicitly includes the number of liaisons. If (for an extreme
> example, the GNSO had 10 liaison, then that would have increased the
> number supported by 5. If all of that were to go to non-liaison folk,
> that would severely distort the intent (more than the possible
> rounding error of dividing an odd number does now).
>
> In any case, I expect that staff will clarify.
>
> Alan
>
> At 19/08/2008 09:08 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>> Alan,
>>
>> Please review the policy again. The Additional Support column of the
>> chart says "Half of Remaining Council Size and Chair." Half of the
>> remaining Council (less liaisons and NomCom) is 9, plus the Chair  
>> makes
>> 10. That seems to add up right to me.
>>
>> The liaisons and NomCom are covered elsewhere in the policy. What the
>> Council has to come up with is a documented, transparent policy  
>> around
>> allocating the additional 10. Since support for the Chair seems to  
>> be an
>> automatic, that leaves 9 spots to deal with. But note the policy is
>> *very* clear that those spots do not have to go to Councilors (see  
>> the
>> sixth bullet under section 2.1 of the policy).
>>
>> So I think it is perfectly appropriate to allow the Constituencies to
>> each have at least one spot to allocate as best fits the needs of its
>> members and how the use of the funds would allow it to best  
>> contribute
>> to the policy process. That would leave three spots for the Council  
>> as a
>> whole to allocate.
>>
>> However, I would personnaly support giving two spots to the NCUC and
>> there appears to be some support for that within the RrC (ultimately,
>> if/when there is a vote on any allocation process I will vote the  
>> voice
>> of the RrC and not my own). I also suggest that any Chairs of WGs  
>> that
>> are active at the time be given preference for the remaining two or
>> three spots.
>>
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for
>> FY09
>> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>> Date: Mon, August 18, 2008 1:15 pm
>> To: "'Council GNSO'" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>
>>
>> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>