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

["Olga Cavalli" <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,
these are some of my thoughts before our conference call tomorrow.

I agree with Robin and Greg in the following concepts:

.....
 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).

........

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.

……..

I  agree with Avri in:

"I firmly believe that whatever number of GNSO council members
get support, they should all get the same level support that Board members
get."


Finally, I personally do not receive any compensation by any company or
organization in relation with my participation in the GNSO. I volunteer my
time and my work for participating in the Council.
Regards to all.
Olga











2008/10/14 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

>  Zahid,
>
> Please understand that I was not advocating that Councilors should not
> represent their constituencies.  I was simply pointing out that that creates
> a possible conflict between registrants who may have different interests but
> who pay ICANN fees some of which are used to pay travel expenses.
>
> Chuck
>
>
> Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)
>
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From:   Zahid Jamil [mailto:zahid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<zahid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ]
> Sent:   Tuesday, October 14, 2008 07:54 PM Eastern Standard Time
> To:     gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc:     'Glen de Saint Géry'; owner-gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject:        RE: [Fwd: Re: [gnso-travel-dt] Travel drafting team mailing
> list open]
>
> Dear Travel Drafting Team,
>
>
>
> At the outset I would simply support Robin's two suggestions.
>
>
>
> However, having gone through the various emails, and in anticipation of the
> conference call tomorrow, I thought it might be useful to put down and share
> some of my thoughts and have thus, attempted to deal with the various issues
> that seem to have been raised and some of my own points:
>
>
>
>
>
> Objective/Purpose of Travel Support:
>
>
>
> In my view Travel Support is to ensure access for those chosen by each
> constituency. So each constituency would be the best judge of how and to
> whom the resource it to be allocated.
>
>
>
> Otherwise it opens up (especially in case of a Travel Committee) to a
> process which could be used to disenfranchise inequitably a constituency or
> any of its representatives. Each constituency has an equal right to be as
> effectively represented.  Either we distribute funds to each constituency
> equally or to each councillor.  Otherwise this travel support will by the
> very nature of a travel committee be open to perceived politics and
> conflict.  I do not see the benefit of introducing further conflict.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> A Policy Divisive? Why are the Funds Limited?:
>
>
>
> I agree with Avri- this divisive policy needs to be altered and I would, as
> a newbie, want to raise the issue of whether we can ensure funds for
> everyone or at least funds divided to each constituency with equal
> treatment.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Conflict of Interest:
>
>
>
> Chuck wrote:  "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."
>
>
>
> Constituencies right to Representation & Mandate - Should Funds be Provided
> Subject to Neutrality?
>
>
>
>
>
> Firstly, the Councillors are not representing their organizations.  They
> are representing the stakeholder constituency.  Secondly, as for the funds
> if the presumption is that in order to receive Travel Support Councillors
> need to SELL off their duty of representation to their Constituency it goes
> against not only the purpose of the Travel Support but also against the
> right of each Constituency to have its elected Councillors represent their
> stakeholder interest on the Council.  Hence, Chuck's suggestion is actually
> encouraging Councillors to act with conflict of interest against the
> interests of their Constituency.  Thirdly, there is no duty upon the
> Councillors "fairly represent the interests of all registrants" in fact its
> quite the opposite.  The entire purpose of having Constituencies is for
> Councillors to represent their own Constituency/Stakeholder view.  Such a
> suggestion would place the function of the Council on its head.  Fourthly,
> the use of registrant funds is completely appropriate as mentioned in the
> Travel Policy (see below).
>
>
>
> The Policy clearly states :  "Participation in ICANN's multistakeholder
> model comes at a cost of time, energy, effort and often direct expense. It
> is entirely appropriate for ICANN revenue, derived from registrant fees, to
> offset some of this cost. At the same time, one of the strengths of ICANN is
> that it brings together a range of interests within the umbrella of a
> community where passion and commitment isn't measured just in financial
> terms."
>
>
>
> Hence, the need for a diverse representation and varying interests being
> represented is the raison d'être.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Support for All:
>
>
>
> Avri wrote: "I firmly believe that whatever number of GNSO council members
> get support, they should all get the same level support that Board members
> get."
>
>
>
> I agree.  In my view all Councillors should get equal support or each
> Constituency should receive equal allocation for them to decide how to use
> these funds – they can do so in a transparent and not divisive/adversarial
> process.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Travel Support Committee:
>
>
>
> Ken Stubbs suggested this since it is a "Procedure used by Non-Profit
> Public Institutions & Organisations"
>
>
>
>
>
> The Criteria & Rationale being suggested is a difficult one to set and
> especially to monitor (especially objectively) particularly in a divisive
> and adversarial group
>
>
>
>
>
> Ken Stubbs wrote: "This proposed procedure insures this "Transparency" as
> well providing a definable process for assisting qualified persons who show
> a clear "need" for travel support."
>
>
>
> Transparency can also be ensured by each Constituency – the existence of a
> new Committee by itself does not provide a unique means to achieve
> Transparency – each Constituency could adopt similar transparent and defined
> criteria itself.  Hence, the logic for a Committee is not exclusive to the
> concept of a Joint Travel Committee but extendable to Constituencies as
> well.
>
>
>
> The requirement of  demonstrate 'need' is simply put a myth since it is not
> a requirement.
>
>
>
> Ken Stubbs wrote:  "This process can also help insure that funds are not
> just expended because they are budgeted."
>
>
>
> The arguments and concept above effectively makes Travel Support an
> exception.  In my opinion this goes against the very rationale for the
> availability of Travel Support and I would submit, is contrary to the Policy
> in letter and spirit and counterproductive in enabling Councillors from all
> stakeholders/constituencies to be present to continue to render what is
> effectively voluntary public service.
>
>
>
> I am sure Ken did not mean to introduce ideas by which this travel support
> could become a process open to politics by any constituency against another
> to attempt to target individuals on the council.
>
>
>
> Such a committee would be hard pressed to work with an objective criteria.
> Hence, it would by definition (of its constituent members) be subjective,
> divisive, adversarial, lead to conflict of interests between members, would
> not inspire much confidence and could easily lead to situations where no one
> is happy with the results. (also such committees are usually presumed to be
> constituted by persons who do not have conflicting interests amongst
> themselves instead of the representative Committee that has been suggested)
>
>
>
>
>
> Administrative Costs of a Travel Committee:
>
>
>
> Let's not forget in a recent vote to allocate ICANN staff resource to an
> issues report, there was much opposition on the basis of the cost to ICANN
> for such an activity, which I am sure would be much less that the staffing
> cost for a travel committee.  Now a suggestion to actually have a Committee
> a Travel Support Committee should also be hit by the same logic,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Equitable Division, Equal Treatment of all Constituencies & Transparency:
>
>
>
>
>
> "Many of the parties on the names council are professional policy staff &
> are being compensated as by their respective companies"..... "participation
> in ICANN activities such as the names council are strictly job-related
> activities and not personal volunteer actions"
>
>
>
> First of all I think such a comment is in most fora inappropriate and am
> disappointed to see a lack of decorum and civilised restraint.  In any case,
> this may be conjecture and let's not forget not all are compensated.  For
> the record my participation in ICANN is not job-related but a personal
> volunteer activity.  My day job has nothing to do with ICANN and I do not
> earn any revenue as a result of participation in ICANN.  My representation
> of my ccTLD Dispute Resolution Provider does not lead to any benefit (since
> it's a ccTLD DRS) nor does it support my presence at ICANN – in fact its the
> other way around.    I think the degrading of many Councillors and colouring
> their participation as profiteering and not what it is – public voluntary
> service for which they do not get paid – is disappointing.
>
>
>
>
>
> Additionally, the role of a Councillor (as in my case) would not be to
> represent the role of my company/entity but to represent the view and work
> on behalf of the entire stakeholder constituency.  Now either we argue for
> placing the entire burden on each Constituency (which defeats the rationale
> for Travel Support) or provide all Constituencies the advantage to have
> their Councillors supported without discrimination and without having
> conflicts with adversarial constituencies to interfere in a Constituencies
> decision to decide who best will serve their representative interest on the
> Council.  Effectively, interference in Travel Support between Constituencies
> interferes and obstructs the democratic right of representation of each
> stakeholder constituency.  In my view the right to elect Councillors is as
> essential and inalienable to Constituencies as is their right to travel
> Support and facilitation (without any discrimination between allocation to
> constituencies) in order to have their representatives attend and discharge
> their duty of representing their Council.  In short Equitable availability
> of Travel Support goes hand in hand with the right to representation.  After
> all what is the point of allowing a constituency a right of representation
> it may not be use as effectively as another constituency.  Hence, any
> disparity in the allocation of the Travel Support would amount to not
> providing Equal Treatment to an aggrieved Constituency.
>
>
>
> Tim Ruiz had written: "Allocation of travel funds should not be decided by
> those who have the opportunity to receive it"
>
>
>
> First of all I disagree.  This is something that comes under the purview of
> the Council and is therefore, necessarily their decision.   Otherwise why
> are we even discussing this issue?  However, even if this argument were to
> be accepted it would be another reason for allocation to be allocated to
> each constituency without discrimination and with Equal Treatment.  The
> moment we agree that it should, thus be distributed to each Constituency
> then concern of Tim's stands addressed.
>
>
>
> Moreover, transparency is not necessarily guaranteed by a committee of all
> constituencies  In any case we are not sure what the new restructured set up
> will look like.  It can as easily be achieved by having each constituency
> decide how and to whom to grant and how to use the funding.  That would
> ensure a non contentious process. This is not a key policy area for
> governance of gtld policies so to expose this to the same level of
> unnecessary contention only serves to exacerbate conflict, bureaucracy and
> resource.
>
>
>
>
>
> Requirement of 'Need'- A Myth:
>
>
>
> As Avri wrote:  "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)"
>
>
>
> Greg wrote:  "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."
>
>
>
>
>
> I agree with both of the comments above.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ken Stubs wrote: "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."
>
>
>
> Again this downgrades Travel Support as an exception.  This runs contrary
> to the right to representation without discrimination and equal treatment
> for each Constituency, as discussed above.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Zahid Jamil
>
> Barrister-at-law
>
> Jamil & Jamil
>
> Barristers-at-law
>
> 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
>
> Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
>
> Cell: +923008238230
>
> Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025
>
> Fax: +92 21 5655026
>
> www.jamilandjamil.com <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/>
>
>
>
> Notice / Disclaimer
>
> This message contains confidential information and its contents are being
> communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended
> recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
> Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this
> message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may
> contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law,
> and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client
> privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of
> any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing
> it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or
> incidentally to some other use of this publication) without prior written
> permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx [
> mailto:owner-gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx>] On
> Behalf Of cyrilchua@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: 10 October 2008 07:23
> To: Robin Gross
> Cc: gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx; owner-gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [gnso-travel-dt] Travel drafting team mailing list
> open]
>
>
>
>
>
> I agree with Robin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>              Robin Gross
>
>              <robin@ipjustice.
>
>              org>                                                       To
>
>              Sent by:                  gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>
>              owner-gnso-travel                                          cc
>
>              -dt@xxxxxxxxx
>
>                                                                    Subject
>
>                                        Re: [Fwd: Re: [gnso-travel-dt]
>
>              10/10/2008 04:56          Travel drafting team mailing list
>
>              AM                        open]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We need to agree to what our over-arching objective is here.
>
>
>
> We are not creating some new general "GNSO travel fund" that anyone can
>
> apply for travel funds to attend an ICANN meeting, and if they are poor
>
> enough, they get to go.   This has been, and in my mind should continue to
>
> be, an effort to fund the participation of the GNSO Council at GSNO Council
>
> meetings.
>
>
>
> The depth of the pockets of the individual councilors is not relevant.   We
>
> are funding the participation of an ICANN organ (GNSO Council) - not
>
> specific people.
>
>
>
> Robin
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 9, 2008, at 1:34 PM, Ken Stubbs wrote:
>
>
>
>       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?)
>
>
>
>       that is beyond "giggle" approaching "laugher"
>
>
>
>       I would expect a certain amount of "lobbying" as it is just human
>
>       nature. The principle difference is the appearance of  ability to
>
>       leverage
>
>       is significantly less with a body independent of council activities.
>
>
>
>       I would assume that the committee would be capable of developing
>
>       guidelines  for  requests that would be consistent with ICANN
>
>       policies developed
>
>       for travel subsidization.
>
>
>
>       Ken Stubbs
>
>       BTW...I would be inclined to believe that the the former chairman of
>
>       Lehman ($300+millions in compensation over the last 5 years) would
>
>       most probably not qualify for subsidy  ......
>
>       nor would Bill Gates...
>
>
>
>
>
>       Avri Doria wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>             On 9 Oct 2008, at 12:32, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>
>
>
>                   If we have to resort to random selection or giggle tests,
>
>                   then we have
>
>                   no business accepting the funds.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>             I personally see no relation between the utility of a random
>
>             method of selecting after the constituencies are determined
>
>             their priorities and the notion of meriting support for council
>
>             member travel.
>
>
>
>                    Ken's ideas are the best way
>
>                   forward, or at least a good start,
>
>
>
>
>
>             Can you explain how his ideas would work in a way that was
>
>             assuredly unbiased and objective?
>
>
>
>             Some questions that immediately occur to me:
>
>
>
>             How would you eliminate the ability of someone to put pressure
>
>             on one of those selected for this independent committee?  What
>
>             does it mean for there to be an independent committee within
>
>             ICANN?  Can members of GNSO constituencies serve on this
>
>             independent committee?  How are these committee members
>
>             chosen?   Is their work transparent?
>
>
>
>
>
>             As for getting beyond the giggle test in determining need, how
>
>             does one do that.  What sort of verification of someone's need
>
>             will be required?  The get a loan for my daughter's college i
>
>             had to prove need and todo so had to fill out the FAFSA ( see
>
>             http://www.fafsa.ed.gov/before012.htm for a sample worksheet).
>
>             Are you suggesting something similar.  If not, how do you prove
>
>             need?
>
>
>
>             Or, how do we define need?  If I were a millionaire, but had no
>
>             employer to send me would I be in need of support?  If I have
>
>             an employer, but they are in bankruptcy proceedings, do I have
>
>             need?
>
>
>
>             I believe these and many other similar questions would need to
>
>             be answered for there to be an objective set of criteria that
>
>             could not be gamed or be subjected to influence.
>
>
>
>
>
>             a.
>
>
>
>             note: for those who may not know the giggle test.  Basically
>
>             someone says "I have need", and if they can say it without most
>
>             people starting to giggle, then that need statement i accepted.
>
>
>
>
>
>             No virus found in this incoming message.
>
>             Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>
>             Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.7.6/1716 - Release Date:
>
>             10/9/2008 9:44 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>