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: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 04:45:04 -0700
> Robin wrote:
> 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.
This is actually true of the representatives of all stakeholder groups,
and those votes should all count. That's what the policy process is all
But travel funding is not about policy. So far, it has been about
providing financial assistance directly to individuals. An individual
who is standing to directly receive financial assistance has a conflict
of interests if that individual is allowed to participate in the
decision making process for allocation of those funds. This is so
fundamental I find it hard to believe that it is argued otherwise.
I also agree with Chuck that the analogy of Councilors to Board members
does not hold water for the reasons he stated.
The original concept for the DNSO was that constituencies should support
themselves. I believe that concept should still be a requirement,
especially given the potential for additional constituencies. I can see
situations where specific constituencies could make a case for financial
assistance. But for the most part, and especially in the case of the
existing constituencies, their ability to financially support themselves
or not is indicitive of their true representativeness of the stakeholder
group they claim to represent.
But given all that has been said so far, while I don't agree with all of
Zahid's logic, I would agree with the concept to simply allocate the
funds evenly to the constituencies and allow them to decide how best to
use the funds. Whatever the process, I could not support one where the
Council is involved in making decisions on which individuals should