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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

On 9 Oct 2008, at 16:34, Ken Stubbs wrote:

> To the best of my knowledge, some recipients never even attempted to  
> show or even claim "need".
> They just made the claim that they complied with ICANN policy and  
> never explained how they complied (where is the transparency there?)

The policy as published by the staff does not require a statement of  
need.  So there was no need to establish need.  i do not see how this  
was non transparent.  The policy with which a funded person must  
comply was (from: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/travel-support/revised-procedure-11aug08-en.htm 
 which forms the foundation of any further allocation process this  
team may propose)
---
Each SO will adopt a selection/allocation process to determine who  
from that SO should receive funding, based on best meeting the policy- 
making needs of the entity; funding can only be used for air fare and  
other travel expenses to and from ICANN meetings for active SO  
members. Examples of a selection/allocation process could include, for  
example: an SO travel committee with members of each constituency (or  
geographic region) that follows a publicly-posted process to select  
their SO’s ICANN-funded participants for each ICANN meeting; or the SO  
could ask ICANN staff to execute a process based on some criteria the  
SO identifies.
---

If the GNSO council decides to impose need as a fundamental criteria,  
then that will be required.  But though some people from the  
Contracted parties side of the council wished to establish such  
criteria for Cairo, they were not able to get agreement from the  
members from the non contracted part of the council.
One could argue that need in and of itself is not sufficient to meet  
the criteria "based on best meting the policy-making needs of the  
entity". In the cairo case, the decsion of what was necessary for  
policy-making was left up to each of the constituencies.  The only  
decision that fell to the council was determining which people would  
not get support had the list of those proposed been longer then the  
available resources could provide for (i.e. ratoning the supply  
against the demand).
a.