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

[Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The potential conflict is there in nearly every action we take.  The  
tension between representing a specific organization, or the  
constituency, or ICANN as a whole is always something many struggle  
with the ICANN policy process and it doesn't matter where they are  
doing it from (i.e. physically at a mtg or remotely).  Lots of  
contracting parties vote on GNSO policy matters that their companies  
will have a direct financial interest in and we don't prevent those  
votes from counting.  So I don't think this travel policy issue is  
much different from other issues in that respect.
I remain committed to how this proposal originally came about:  
facilitating the full participation and functioning of the GNSO  
Council (Cairo is my last mtg on Council).  The sooner we can get  
these types of non-substantive issues out of the way, the sooner we  
can get to doing the real policy work (with all bodies at the  
table).  A fully functional and fully participating GNSO Council is  
an important component to ICANN functioning as intended and in having  
some connection to Internet users.
Robin



On Oct 9, 2008, at 7:55 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> As I have said before and consistent with the RyC position, there  
> is a potential conflict when individuals are representing their  
> organization interests and being subsidized by general registrant  
> funds.  If those who are being so subsidized are willing to fairly  
> represent the interests of all registrants and not just the  
> interests of their respective organizations and constituencies,  
> then the conflict would be minimized.  Board members are required  
> to represent the interests of the Corporation and hence the  
> interests of the broader Internet community rather than their own  
> interests or the interests of those organizations with which they  
> are affiliated.  That is not the case of GNSO participants and I am  
> not advocating that it should be, but that is the source of the  
> conflict to which I am referring.  How do we deal with that?
> Chuck
>
> From: owner-gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-travel- 
> dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Greg Ruth
> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 10:15 AM
> To: Robin Gross; gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [gnso-travel-dt] Travel drafting team  
> mailing list open]
> I agree with Robin.  Moreover, I am nonplussed by Tim's emphasis on  
> "need".  Travel support for the Board or for NCAs is not based on  
> need.  And it would be insulting (and absurd) to ask anyone to  
> "demonstrate" need.  The GNSO travel support is not a fellowship or  
> charity, it is support specifically for those who are engaged in  
> the policy making work of the GNSO, enabling them to attend face-to- 
> face meetings.  I believe that it is up to the individual  
> constituencies to decide how best to use these funds to enable  
> their representation in this work.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2008 10:13:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [gnso-travel-dt] Travel drafting team  
> mailing list open]
> 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



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