ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[bc-gnso]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC comment on ICANN proposed budget for 2012

  • To: "'bc - GNSO list'" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC comment on ICANN proposed budget for 2012
  • From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 11:06:51 -0700

Sorry for the confusing post?  I meant to include the text that I suggest
should replace that section.  Here is my proposed text, which eliminates the
notion that Chairs decide this issue, and states a clear preference for
Councilors to be funded so that they can do the job to which they are
elected:

 

We support the present approach whereby the Constituencies authorize the
funding of 2 reps per CSG constituency, per ICANN meeting.  The funds should
be earmarked for Councilor travel, except where the Councilor is unavailable
for travel, has alternate funding, or otherwise agrees.  While this funding
is rightfully intended to support councilors, so that they can perform the
job to which they are elected, some flexibility to its allocation is
important.

 

Thanks,

Mike

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087

 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com

 

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 10:36 AM
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC comment on ICANN proposed budget for 2012

 

Thanks Chris and others for all the hard work on this.  I am in agreement
except as to one point, which has been a point of contention within the BC
in the past.

 

I suggest a change to the section re GNSO Travel funding.  Specifically I
would replace that section:

 

We support the present approach whereby the chairs of the Constituencies/SGs
authorize the funding to the 2 reps per entity. While this usually does end
up supporting councilors, the flexibility to its allocation is important and
has been of benefit when a councilor can?t travel, or when it is possible to
spread the funding across multiple attendees. Such flexibility by ICANN is
an improvement over a rigid process and we want to comment ICANN for this
improvement.

 

Also, the ?number of members? info at the end of the document appears
erroneous.

 

Best,

Mike

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087

http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> 

 

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Chris Chaplow
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 3:37 AM
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC comment on ICANN proposed budget for 2012

 

Please find attached  redline V2 of the document updated after members
comments.

 

Looking forward to speak on the call later today.

 

Best regards,

Chris Chaplow
Managing Director
Andalucia.com S.L.
Avenida del Carmen 9
Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo
1ª Planta, Oficina 30
Estepona, 29680
Malaga, Spain
Tel: + (34) 952 897 865
Fax: + (34) 952 897 874
E-mail:  <mailto:chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Web:  <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andalucia.com
Information about Andalucia, Spain.



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy