ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

Re: [gnso-travel-dt] Clarifying the calculation of funds provided

  • To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-travel-dt] Clarifying the calculation of funds provided
  • From: Greg Ruth <greg_ruth@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 09:21:17 -0700 (PDT)

It looks like our WG has uninamous agreement on a sensible way forward.  
I think probably the biggest remaining issue for us to resolve is how to divide 
up the funds budgeted for GNSO travel support among the 6 constituencies.  And 
of course that requires a clear understanding of where the travel budget 
numbers come from in the first place.  Thanks for bringing this up, Tim.

I believe that we'd pretty much agree on an equal distribution to each 
constituency.  But the ICANN travel support procedure, as written, provides for 
10 "slots" per ICANN meeting and specifies an all-or-nothing funding policy for 
each slot.  Of course, 10 is not evenly divisible by 6.

Perhaps we can get ICANN to allow us the flexibility we'd need to make equal 
distributions to the constituencies.  But I'm not sure exactly what form this 
should take.  The simplest solution (and probably best use of the funds) would 
be to divide the budget by 6 and give each constituency an equal dollar amount 
budget of its own.  However, that is potentially problematic.  Presumably the 
ICANN travel support procedure is intended to fund 30 person-trips (besides 
chair and NCAs) per year to ICANN meetings.  Hopefully, careful stewardship of 
the funds by constituencies would enable *more* participation than that, but 
miscalculations could result is less particiaption (e.g. runing short of funds 
for an expensive 3rd meeting).  Moreover, any departure from the all-or-nothing 
policy (e.g. partial support for an attendee) would entail an extra accounting 
burdern for ICANN, not to mention the attendant negotiations with ICANN 
staff (e.g. what if my
 constituency wants its attendees to stay at a cheaper hotel to conserve funds?)

As a fall-back, sub-optimal solution, we could allot 5 full person-trips per 
year (3*10/6) to each constituency.  Not my favorite option, but easier for the 
Corporation.  Your thoughts?


----- Original Message ----
From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 11:31:38 AM
Subject: [gnso-travel-dt] Clarifying the calculation of funds provided

In the revised procedure as posted at:

It says in the last few bullets of 2.1:
-- ICANN will allocate sufficient funds so that the Chair, NomCom
appointees, and half of the remaining counselors will receive travel
support (again, travel support could be used to support

-- The Chair is assumed to use Business class air travel; remaining
travel is budgeted at economy rates. Average airfares are assumed to be
$2,000 economy and $6,000 business. 

-- Average total per-diem is assumed to be $2800/meeting. Actual per
diem amounts will be published for each meeting, based on international

Also, look at the chart. The number of supported travelers is arrived at
as [NCAs + Chair + HalfofCouncilSize].

I think there's a math problem in the chart, but based on all the above
the calculated amount appears to include the Chair (at business class)
and NCAs. That's important to note as we define the process for dividing
the funds across constituencies. The funds to divide then might be
something like [FundsProvided - ChairTravel - NCATravel].

Personally, I still prefer that no funds are provided for business class
for anyone. Regardless of the amount of work anyone does otherwise, the
trip is just as long. It seems a waste to use up the equivalent of three
in economy for one in business. If the Chair is an NCA, maybe. If the
Chair is a constituency Councilor then let the constituency decide. The
funds to divvy up would then simply be [FundsProvided - NCATravel].



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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy