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

[Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ken Stubbs wrote:

We should try a "common sense " talk with ICANN.. It would seem to me 
that they would be happy to accept a practical common sense solution that
is supported by all parties..

If we can show full support here it would seem to me that ICANN would be 
please with this "non contentious" approach to resolving the issue.

Ken Stubbs..

Greg Ruth wrote:
> 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?
>  
> Greg
> ----- 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:
> http://www.icann.org/en/topics/travel-support/revised-procedure-11aug08-en.htm
>
> 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
> other-than-counselors)
>
> -- 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
> standards
>
> 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].
>
>
> Tim
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.8.0/1726 - Release Date: 10/15/2008 7:29 AM
>