ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

RE: [gnso-travel-dt] the original ad-hoc process used - and a thought

  • To: avri@xxxxxxx
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-travel-dt] the original ad-hoc process used - and a thought
  • From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 09:15:19 -0700

If we have to resort to random selection or giggle tests, then we have
no business accepting the funds.

The real issue is that the ability of a constituncy to fund its
participation should be a cornerstone criteria with minimal exceptions.


> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [gnso-travel-dt] the original ad-hoc process used - and a
> thought
> From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, October 09, 2008 10:06 am
> To: gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Hi,
> As I am sure people remember, the process used for Cairo involved each  
> of the constituencies presenting a list of 0-3 people according to any  
> criteria they choose to use.  The first person on each constituencies  
> list was automatically qualified for travel support.
> The second step was for a representative of each of the constituencies  
> to participate in an ad-hoc team to figure out how to  distribute the  
> rest of budgeted travel slots.  This list was then voted on by the  
> council.
> Several people have argued that it was not legitimate for the council  
> to take such a vote when some of those voting could be chosen for  
> travel support.  While I disagree with the claims of illegitimacy, I  
> could be wrong and it is worth getting an opinion from legal counsel  
> on this.
> An alternative I considered at the time and one which I planned to use  
> had we not been able to accommodate everyone from all of the  
> constituency's lists or if contention had been too great  was to use a  
> transparent and verifiable random selection method as documented in  
> RFC 3797.  This sort of process is cleaner and easier then one that  
> involves a external selection committee that may or may not be  
> considered unbiased (do we keep everyone who knows anything about  
> ICANN or who registers a domain name off this panel?) or a process  
> based on need , which to be reasonable would require some sort of  
> verification stronger then the famous giggle test.
> a.

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy