[council] Travel policy draft and other comments

[Stéphane Van Gelder]

The question I keep on asking myself is why do we have to complicate things
even further?

There was an initial proposal to allocate a set amount of money to each
constituency. That makes it simple: each constituency gets the same and does
with it what they want.

Now we have this proposal to decide on a set number of people who will
benefit from support instead. I understand from Doug's explanations that it
might help simplify some budget issues, but as Chuck and Philip have pointed
out, it also complicates other aspects of this whole thing for reasons which
some of us might not have initially seen.

That's fine. So if that's the case why not just stick with the "we have a
total amount X for travel support for the GNSO and we divide that by the
number of constituencies"?

Thanks,

Stéphane Van Gelder


Le 18/12/08 11:09, « Jordi Iparraguirre » <ipa at domini.cat> a écrit :

> 
> Thanks Olga for compiling it.
> 
> some proposals:
> 
> 1-What about including a deadline or set of conditions beyond which
> these principles become derogated and a new ones have to be set ?
> With all the changes we are about to face, I think it's worth we set a
> self imposed review of the procedure, or even better, set the maximum
> duration of these princpiles.
> 
> 2- I understand that if a constituency does not use the allocated
> budget, this is not lost, nor transferred to other constituencies, but
> saved. Is this right ?
> 
> 3- following Chuck's question (1,67 heads per constituency), in case of
> non natural numbers dividing budget by people, I'd propose to round it
> down. Then, each constituency may add the amount they wish to fly as
> many people as constituency budget can support.
> 
> 4- is there a limit on the number of total subsidized people ?
> That is, the limit seems to be the allocated budget, but is there a
> limit on that ?  Or will GNSO ask for more and more money to fly for
> free more and more people each time ?
> 
> 
> I propose to set these limits. We are using registrants' money for that
> purpose and besides transparency we need to provide clear accountability
> and check and balance processes.
> 
> 
> Thanks
> jordi
> 
> 
> En/na Olga Cavalli ha escrit:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> In preparation for our conference call tomorrow, I am enclosing in this
>> email the draft text prepared by the drafting team, which includes the
>> suggestions made by Phillip and acceppted by some of us.
>> There is also a brief summary of Doug Brent´s response in relation with
>> the request of flexibility for fund allocation.
>> There has not been a lot of feedback from constituencies to this text,
>> so am not sure if we are ready yet to draft a motion.
>> Looking forward to talking to you tomorrow.
>> Regards
>> Olga
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> *_GNSO PRINCIPLES FOR ALLOCATION OF TRAVEL SUPPORT FUNDS FOR ICANN MEETING_*
>> 
>> Allocation and Control:
>> 
>> The total GNSO Travel support budget (less the amount allotted to the
>> NCAs and GNSO Council chair) should be divided to the extent possible on
>> an equal basis among the GNSO constituencies.
>> 
>> The use of travel support funds is for travel to ICANN meetings,
>> including regional, inter-sessional, and face-to-face working group
>> meetings.
>> 
>> The use of travel support funds is to be solely determined by each
>> constituency independently as it sees fit to most effectively progress
>> the work of the GNSO.
>> 
>> The GNSO Council has no role in deciding how these funds are allocated
>> to individuals.
>> 
>> Transparency and Reporting:
>> 
>> ICANN staff will publish the names of all those who receive travel
>> support together with a list of the relevant meeting(s) for which the
>> support was given and which were attended by the support recipient.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> *_Highligts of the comments sent by Doug Brent:_*
>> 
>> The current travel procedure talks about a certain number of people
>> getting travel support for meetings (air and per diem). To add some
>> flexibility at the cost of some additional tracking, ICANN can enable a
>> split of that support; a certain number receiving air reimbursement and
>> a certain number receiving per diem support (where these could be
>> different people). To belabor the point for clarity, if before there
>> were ten total people supported for air and per diem, now perhaps five
>> could receive both air and per diem, five could receive air only, and
>> five per diem only.
>> 
>> Using this approach there will be a number of supported people, not a fund.
>> 
>> Then, each constituency would be allocated some number of supported
>> travelers.
>> 
>> If we go by number of travelers, the variability is a budget variability
>> that does not affect the constituency; it will just impact the accuracy
>> of ICANN budgeting by the staff.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>