[council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

That is one of the outstanding questions, i.e. can support for hotel/ 
expenses be given to someone other then a person who gets airfare.

a.



On 20 Aug 2008, at 11:22, Rosette, Kristina wrote:

> Following up on Chuck's post, will shared use be permitted if no one
> person needs full support, but two persons need partial support?
>
> K
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org 
> ]
> On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 10:59 AM
> To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO
> Subject: RE: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for
> FY09
>
>
> Why does the Council even have to be involved with regard to whom a
> constituency wants to select for travel support?  I would suggest that
> we give freedom to constituencies to independently select someone who
> needs travel support or to propose some shared use of the travel funds
> if that is permissable and send the name to the Council for  
> transmittal
> to staff.  We should not put ourselves in a position to second guess
> constituencies but rather should trust them to make this decision.  We
> as a Council could then work on how to handle any remaining funds,  
> which
> could be the focus of the special meeting.
>
> Chuck
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
>> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 10:26 AM
>> To: Council GNSO
>> Subject: Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for
>> FY09
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> As a recommendation for a way to proceed for Cairo only - allowing a
>> general discussion of principles and alignment with a revamped GSNO
>> structure for later, how about:
>>
>> -  Each Constituency suggests a prioritized list of names (0-3).  The
>> first name, if any, of each of the list is guaranteed and the council
>> will discuss how to distribute the
>> 4 remaining spots amount the other names that may be put forward.
>>
>> -- As an additional element, I would suggest that on names
>> 2-3 on the list, the constituency indicate whether there is a special
>> reason or need for including the name.
>>
>> -- I suggest that the names 2-3 on the list not be limited to  
>> council 
>> member but can include WG chairs if the constituency so recommends.
>>
>> - I suggest that each constituency submit its list to the council
>> email list by Tuesday 26 Aug.
>>
>> - I also suggest that we schedule a special meeting for Thursday 29
>> Aug to finalize any issues.  I understand that it may not be possible
>> for all members to attend then, but as long as there is at least one
>> member, all is better, from each constituency empowered to speak for
>> their constituency, I am hoping we can reach agreement. Also, I
>> understand that staff may be otherwise involved in this time slot as
>> they may have prior commitments, but in this case I think that is a
>> secondary consideration to figuring out how to handle this situation
>> for Cairo in an agreeable manner.
>>
>> - In the meantime we make sure we have answers to all questions that
>> may be critical to making our decisions in time for making
>> reservations for Cairo.
>>
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> a.
>>
>>
>> On 19 Aug 2008, at 15:06, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> An even split for Cairo may make sense. But WG efforts *are* an
>>> intregal part of the policy process, and the goal of the
>> funding is to
>>> broaden participation in policy processes. So why wouldn't the WGs
>>> fall under that?
>>>
>>> My thinking was that as we move more fully to the WG model, finding
>>> good WG Chairs will be a challenge. The prospect of travel
>> funding for
>>> ICANN meetings may prove to be an incentive. If we want some rules
>>> around that, that would make sense - not for Chairs who are also
>>> Councilors, not for Chairs who represent a constituency member, or
>>> whatever.
>>>
>>> And for the record, I would not accept travel assistance for myself.
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support
>> Procedure for
>>> FY09
>>> From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>>> Date: Tue, August 19, 2008 1:47 pm
>>> To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>
>>> Cc: Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>>
>>> No one has said Councilors are more important.
>>>
>>>
>>> It was my understanding that we weren't funding "people"
>> per se, but
>>> specific "roles" within the ICANN policy development
>> process.  If you
>>> want to change it so we are funding the people that we think are
>>> contributing the most, that is another story, and we can certainly
>>> have
>>> that conversation.   But we should be clear what we are
>> doing - right
>>> now it just looks like a "grab bag" has opened up.
>>>
>>>
>>> Robin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 19, 2008, at 11:34 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>>>
>>> I think we have to be careful about thinking of ourselves as more
>>> important as Councilors than other GNSO members.  If someone is
>>> devoting considerable time to GNSO work regardless whether
>> they are on
>>> the Council or not we should recognize that and help to meet their
>>> travel needs if possible.
>>>
>>> Chuck
>>>
>>> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
>>> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org
>>> ]
>>> On Behalf Of Robin Gross
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 2:08 PM
>>> To: Greg Ruth
>>> Cc: Council GNSO
>>> Subject: Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support
>> Procedure for
>>> FY09
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree with Greg.  What began as a process to ensure
>> councilors could
>>> participate at council meetings has turned into something else
>>> entirely.
>>>
>>>
>>> Robin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 19, 2008, at 10:50 AM, Greg Ruth wrote:
>>>
>>> Basically, I disagree with the notion that some of the
>> travel funding
>>> should be allocated to constituencies and some should be
>> earmarked to
>>> support WG chairs.  I believe the original intent was not
>> to progress
>>> WG efforts, but rather to make sure that all stakeholders
>>> (constituencies)
>>> have an *equal* opportunity to participate.  (I would think that a
>>> responsible WG chair should have been sure of his/her ability to
>>> participate *before* accepting the position.)  Therefore, I am in
>>> favor of dividing the funding more or less equally among the
>>> consituencies and letting each decide how it can best support
>>> representation at ICANN meetings.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> IP JUSTICE
>>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>>> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> IP JUSTICE
>>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>>> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>