RE: [gnso-travel-dt] ICANN travel support for the Mexico City meeting

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> We might want to give preference to those constituencies 
> that used fewer slots last time.

How about this:

NCUC – 2
ISPC – 2
RyC – 2
BC – 1
RrC – 2
IPC – 2

Then leave it up to the constituencies whether or not to split up the
funds. They could either fund two people fully or one full and two
split. The BC (who had three fully funded last time) could fund one
fully or one for airfare and a second for the lodging per diem.

Tim 


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-travel-dt] ICANN travel support for the Mexico City
meeting
From: Greg Ruth <greg_ruth@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, January 08, 2009 3:16 pm
To: gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx

All,
        I would observe that ICANN funded travel support for the Cairo
meeting (excluding NCAs) was as follows.
 
Gross, Robin - NCUC - Constituency 1st choice - Economy 
Harris, Tony - ISPC - Constituency 1st choice - Economy
Hoover, Carolyn - RyC - Constituency 1st choice - Economy 
Jamil,Zahid - BC Financial Need - Economy 
Klein, Norbert - NCUC - Financial Need - Economy 
Rossette, Kristina - IPC - Financial Need - Expenses Only 
Rodenbaugh, Mike - BC - Constituency 1st choice - Economy 
Sheppard, Philip - BC - Complies with ICANN policy - Economy 
Walton, Clarke - RrC - Constituency 1st choice – Economy
 
That is, the GNSO constituencies used the following numbers of travel
support “slots” (for a total of 9):
 
NCUC – 2
ISPC – 1
RyC – 1
BC – 3
RrC – 1
IPC – 1

Therefore, out of the 20 slots allotted by ICANN for consituency travel
to the Cairo and Mexico City meetings, theoretically 11 are still
available for travel to the Mexico City meeting.

We might want to give preference to those constituencies that used fewer
slots last time.

Greg