ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [gnso-travel-dt] Travel drafting team mailing list open]
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 16:58:11 -0400

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).


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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy