[council] Comments in relation with GNSO travel funding and policy

[Gomes, Chuck]

Why?
 
Chuck


________________________________

	From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
	Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 12:22 PM
	To: 'GNSO Council'
	Subject: RE: [council] Comments in relation with GNSO travel
funding and policy
	
	
	Chuck,
	it was these proposed edits by you that sent a shudder down my
spine.
	I must go and recuperate immediately ...TGIF.
	Philip
	--------------------------
	It could be good if constituencies receive the travel funds and
they distribute these funds among their members with flexibility.[Gomes,
Chuck]  Looking forward, I think we should change 'constituencies' to
'stakeholder groups'. 

	The budgeted amount for GNSO should be monetized and divided
equally between Constituencies (possibly SGs if there is a proliferation
of Constituencies).[Gomes, Chuck]  The way this is worded, it result in
a stakeholder group with lots of constituencies getting most of the
funds while those with few constituencies receiving few funds.  In other
words, it would be possible for a bunch of small constituencies to
receive more travel funding than a large constituency that may represent
many more stakeholders than the group of small constituencies.  I
suspect that that was not the intent, so I suggest changing
'Constituencies' to 'stakeholder groups'. 

	Constituency allocation should be transparent but at the
discretion of the Constituency.[Gomes, Chuck]   I would change
'Constituency' in both cases to 'stakeholder group'. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20090327/ba3767fc/attachment.html>