Re: [Fwd: Re: [gnso-travel-dt] Travel drafting team mailing list open]

["Olga Cavalli" <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Avri,
you make very good points, some of them were discussed during the last call
but I will take all your comments to be considered during today´s conference
call.
Regards
Olga

2008/10/23 Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>

>
> Hi,
> Sorry I missed the meeting again.
>
> Has the groups covered the situation for the bicameral situation where
> constituencies will be f different size.  Will the funds be split
> proportionally between the constituencies?  And what happens wen a new
> constituency is brought on board in the middle of the year?
>
> Also is there any indication of flexibility on the part of the staff policy
> in terms of how the monies are allocated?
>
> thanks
>
> a.
>
>
> On 23 Oct 2008, at 02:33, Olga Cavalli wrote:
>
>  Hi,
>> As we will have our next call tomorrow, I thought it could be helpful to
>> share with you some notes I have taken during our call last week.
>>
>> Please take in consideration that these are only notes, and should not be
>> considered as agreed principles or agreed ideas.
>>
>> Notes
>>
>> There is obligation to participate in meetings when recieving financing
>> for attending them.
>> Should there be guidelines for using funds or / and attending meetings?
>> Should it be some feedback after the meetings? Or this brings a lot of
>> work to council members...
>> Constituencies should be free to allocate in a transpartent process a
>> certain amount of founds assigned to them
>> There should be flexibility for constituencies in using these funds, so
>> they could decide
>> There should be an annual ammount  assigned per constituency.
>> The GNSO Council should not get involved as council in how these funds are
>> used, once they are assigned to constituencies
>> Should there be a contingency budget?
>> What happens with other required face to face meetings like, for example,
>> new gtlds?
>>
>> Regards
>> Olga
>>
>>
>>
>> 2008/10/15 Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Dear collegues,
>> thanks a lot for those who participated in the call, we had a very
>> interesting exchange of ideas.
>>
>> Considering that our due date for the outcome report is November 21st, the
>> proposed next steps are:
>>
>> - Each of you will send some paragraphs related with the ideas that were
>> rised during the call
>> - Once they arrive I will start drafting a document
>> - The document will be discussed in the list and during our next call
>> - Nex call date and time will be set up though a doodle that Glen will
>> send, proposed dates are Wed 22, Thrusd. 23 or Fri. 24.
>>
>> Ken, please coud you be so kind to send to the list the summary of issues
>> that you expressed on the call? I think it was an excellent synthesis of
>> many of the ideas that we exchanged.
>>
>> Thanks to all and regards.
>> Olga
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2008/10/15 Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>
>> > Avri wrote:
>> > Or, how do we define need? If I were a millionaire, but had no
>> > employer to send me would I be in need of support? If I have an
>> > employer, but they are in bankruptcy proceedings, do I have need?
>>
>> Those questions get to my point about constituencies supporting
>> themselves. It's not about a single individual's financial ability,
>> or about their specific employer's financial situation. It's about
>> the membership of the constituency as a whole and whether or not
>> it is financially capable of funding its operation and
>> participation within the process. If, for good reason, it is not,
>> then that is an issue for a broader consideration regarding
>> financial assistance.
>>
>> For example, if it is deemed vital to the best interests of ICANN
>> to have a registrants' constituency but funding its participation
>> is an issue, it may be decided that a certain level of financial
>> support is appropriate. But that should be decided on a
>> constituency by constituency basis, not on an individual
>> participant basis.
>>
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [gnso-travel-dt] Travel drafting team mailing
>> list open]
>> From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
>> Date: Thu, October 09, 2008 3:00 pm
>> To: gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9 Oct 2008, at 12:32, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>>
>> > If we have to resort to random selection or giggle tests, then we have
>> > no business accepting the funds.
>> >
>>
>>
>> I personally see no relation between the utility of a random method of
>> selecting after the constituencies are determined their priorities and
>> the notion of meriting support for council member travel.
>>
>> > Ken's ideas are the best way
>> > forward, or at least a good start,
>>
>>
>> Can you explain how his ideas would work in a way that was assuredly
>> unbiased and objective?
>>
>> Some questions that immediately occur to me:
>>
>> How would you eliminate the ability of someone to put pressure on one
>> of those selected for this independent committee? What does it mean
>> for there to be an independent committee within ICANN? Can members of
>> GNSO constituencies serve on this independent committee? How are
>> these committee members chosen? Is their work transparent?
>>
>>
>> As for getting beyond the giggle test in determining need, how does
>> one do that. What sort of verification of someone's need will be
>> required? The get a loan for my daughter's college i had to prove
>> need and todo so had to fill out the FAFSA ( see
>> http://www.fafsa.ed.gov/before012.htm
>> for a sample worksheet). Are you suggesting something similar. If
>> not, how do you prove need?
>>
>> Or, how do we define need? If I were a millionaire, but had no
>> employer to send me would I be in need of support? If I have an
>> employer, but they are in bankruptcy proceedings, do I have need?
>>
>> I believe these and many other similar questions would need to be
>> answered for there to be an objective set of criteria that could not
>> be gamed or be subjected to influence.
>>
>>
>> a.
>>
>> note: for those who may not know the giggle test. Basically someone
>> says "I have need", and if they can say it without most people
>> starting to giggle, then that need statement i accepted.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>