RE: [Fwd: Re: [gnso-travel-dt] Travel drafting team mailing list open]

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Robin,

The way I would like to see it, given the upcoming bicameral structure,
is that for the most part constituencies fund themselves. That should
not be an issue for the contracted parties' house as a whole. It should
also not be an issue for most of the users' house - BC, ISPC, IPC in
particular.

However, if the users' side of the house does indeed expand
participation and includes individual users,
non-profits/non-commercials, etc., etc., then I can see where a case can
be made for various individuals within that group to receive assistance
with travel expenses. Funds would be allocated on a case by case basis
using a mechanism similar to what Ken described. Of course, the NCAs
would be eligible also.

If the funds are allocated on a truly needful basis, using criteria that
is as objective as possible, then a Travel Support Committee of some
sort may work.

Tim 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [gnso-travel-dt] Travel drafting team mailing
list open]
From: Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, October 08, 2008 9:13 pm
To: gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx

I have a different take on the GNSO travel policy.  My first preference
is for all travel funds to be specifically allocated to GNSO Councilors
to participate in GNSO meetings.


If that is not possible, then constituencies should be permitted to use
their travel funds as they choose to send the members they feel they
need at the meeting.   It should not be up to a committee of all
constituencies to decide who to send to represent any particular
constituency.  Constituencies are in the best position to know how to
use their funds (rather than well-meaning members of other
constituencies).


Thanks,
Robin



On Oct 4, 2008, at 8:31 AM, Glen de Saint Géry wrote:

 
Ken Stubbs wrote: 

Please post this to the travel wg list. i tried earlier but it evidently
my send never got thru


Ken Stubbs wrote: 

Fellow committee members, 

Here is a personal suggestion regarding the Travel Support policy and
it's administration as well as some personal observations . 
The proposed procedure is used currently by many non-profit public
institutions & organizations 
and could be very applicable as a model for managing these discretionary
expenses.


1. Suggestions
       Pool all proposed budgeted dollars for travel support to GNSO
>From this pool, fund travel for chairs of SO
Develop set criteria to be used by applicants from the GNSO  to
demonstrate need to apply for travel support funding
Applications for support would be submitted  through the GNSO
Secretariat
These requests would be given to a newly constituted Travel support
committee within ICANN (i.e.could be formed by a representative from
each SO, as well as the CFO), supported by staff,   to review the
applications
Publish all information on any approved travel support (name of
recipient, affiliation, rationale, etc.) on ICANN website
Other procedures established relative to time line, funding limits,
payment process, etc. would apply
The essential key to this process is "Transparency" . This proposed
procedure insures this "Transparency" as well providing a definable
process for
assisting qualified persons who show a clear "need" for travel support.
This process can also help insure that funds are not just expended
because they are budgeted.

2. Personal Observations & Commentary:
Many of the parties on the names council are professional policy staff &
are being compensated as by their respective companies (i.e. Verizon,
British Telecom, Telstra, major law firms and large trade and
professional  associations like INTA or AIM) ,as part of their
job-related activities, to advocate and work within the ICANN policy
development process and for these parties, participation in ICANN
activities such as the names council are strictly job-related activities
and not personal volunteer actions (such as  those of the NomCOM
appointees). As such i feel that they should not receive travel support
for ICANN meetings.   
I fully subsidizing  persons representing  broad community and
individual user interests and feel that,  if they have an individual
need for travel assistance, 
it should be made on a case-by-case basis.
I also feel very strongly that authority to select recipients & fund
their travel support should NOT vest in the names council as a body or
with the Chair or Vice-chair.  
Optically, this could easily send a negative "self-interest"  message
the the general community. 

Regards,


Ken Stubbs












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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx