[bc-gnso] Travel Support to ICANN meetings -- post if you want some of it

[George Kirikos <icann@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi folks,

To followup on my prior post:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00430.html

I noticed this post by Kevin Wilson to the Council mailing list:

http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07445.html

which stated that "My understanding is that the GNSO delegates to each
constituency the decision for assigning these slots."

I believe the *members* of the BC Constituency need to decide how
those funds are allocated. For example, Marilyn Cade has been a great
contributor to the BC, and might warrant full or half-support or
one-third (depending on what fractions they permit). Sarah Deutsch and
Steve DelBianco have done us proud at hearings in DC. Phil Corwin has
also done a lot of positive work. Mike O'Connor participates on many
committees and workgroups. The folks from CADNA have done excellent
work. Similarly, others in the BC are doing the same. Perhaps some
organizations are in greater financial need than others, and would
benefit from the support.

The members might rightly decide that it is better for one or more of
the officers to participate remotely, or receive only fractional
financial support, and that others are more deserving of that ICANN
funding.

CADNA has recently called for an audit of ICANN:

http://www.cadna.org/en/newsroom/press-releases/cadna-calls-for-full-scale-audit-of-ICANN

That examination should also extend to the BC itself, as many of the
questions raised are equally valid when pointed at how the BC
operates.

Gary recently asked who plans to attend Seoul:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00397.html

Perhaps we should expand that question further asking who desires the
funding from ICANN that is available, and allow the members to vote or
otherwise arrive at a consensus as to how that allocation should be
done.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/