ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< 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: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:32:26 -0700

Also agree on a discussion with ICANN. That needs to occur soon since we
really can't go much further with this approach until we know what, if
any, the caveats may be.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-travel-dt] Clarifying the calculation of funds
From: Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, October 15, 2008 2:08 pm
To: gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx

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.


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
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?

----- Original Message ----
From: Tim Ruiz mailto: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].


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


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 >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy