<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-travel-dt] Clarifying the calculation of funds provided
- To: gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [gnso-travel-dt] Clarifying the calculation of funds provided
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:21:00 +0200
Hi,
Sorry I could not make the meeting.
One question about this "common sense" plan, would the money be
divided equally among the 4 SGs or would it be proportional based on
the membership in the SGs? I may have missed it in the description.
If it is divided among constituencies, as more constituencies form
with the division be recalculated. How will that work in the middle
of a year? Is there a concern that some SG may have a more
constituencies then another constituency or that they may have
different growth rates?
a.
On 15 Oct 2008, at 21:08, Robin Gross wrote:
Since this proposal would go into effect some time in 2009, the
funds would be divided equally among the 4 stake-holder groups who
could then decide if they wanted to use the funds to send their
counselors or other members to the meetings (and assuming NCAs are
funded). The stake-holder groups should also decide at what level
of support to give their representatives. Some may want to only
use economy travel, some may only want to send only the GNSO
counselors, some may want to fund the airfare for one member and the
hotel costs of another. The point is we want to leave it up to the
individual stake-holder groups to decide how to use the funds
allocated to them. Bearing in mind transparency and accountability
is expected from each stake-holder group.
So I agree with the "common sense" talk with ICANN to allocate a
specific amount that can be utilized at the discretion of each stake-
holder group.
Robin
On Oct 15, 2008, at 10:16 AM, Ken Stubbs wrote:
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
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|