RE: [Fwd: Re: [gnso-travel-dt] Travel drafting team mailing list open]
- To: gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: [gnso-travel-dt] Travel drafting team mailing list open]
- From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 09:11:16 -0700
Sorry, I won't be joining the call today. I will be tied up on other
issues for most of the day.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [gnso-travel-dt] Travel drafting team mailing
From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, October 23, 2008 12:01 am
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?
On 23 Oct 2008, at 02:33, Olga Cavalli wrote:
> 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.
> There is obligation to participate in meetings when recieving
> financing for attending them.
> Should there be guidelines for using funds or / and attending
> 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?
> 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.
> 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.
> -------- 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
> > 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
> 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.
> 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.