<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-travel-dt] ICANN travel support for the Mexico City meeting
- To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [gnso-travel-dt] ICANN travel support for the Mexico City meeting
- From: Greg Ruth <greg_ruth@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 10:54:11 -0800 (PST)
I agree that could send a bad message. BC is the next likely candidate, but
that would leave them with only 0.5 this time around. Perhaps some other
consitituency will not need to use its full allotment?
Greg
________________________________
From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 1:36:38 PM
Subject: RE: [gnso-travel-dt] ICANN travel support for the Mexico City meeting
Any suggestion as to where to take the .5 from? Going strictly by the numbers,
it would make most sense to take it from the NCUC. I just think it sends a bad
message to have the Non-commercial stakeholders take the hit.
Tim
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-travel-dt] ICANN travel support for the Mexico City
meeting
From: Greg Ruth <greg_ruth@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, January 12, 2009 10:32 am
To: Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx, Stéphane_Van_Gelder
<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>
All,
This looks like a pretty good approach. However, in our latest ISPCP
conference call we discovered that there is a need for 2 full slots and one
hotel, making 2.5 in total. Is this agreeable, as our constituency used only
one slot for Cairo?
Greg
________________________________
From: Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Greg Ruth <greg_ruth@xxxxxxxxx>; gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Stéphane Van
Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>; Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 10:42:57 AM
Subject: Re: [gnso-travel-dt] ICANN travel support for the Mexico City meeting
Hi,
I have drafted a small table containing the name of constituencies and the
funded travellers in Cairo and Tim proposal for Mexico, I also added in the
right a column with the possible total funded travellers per constituency.
We should exchange ideas fast as constituencies must decide by Jan 22nd.
Have a good week and regards to all.
Olga
Constituencies Cairo meeting Mexico meeting
Tim Proposal Total per constituency
NCUC 2 2 4
ISPC 1 2 3
RyC 1 2 3
BC 3 1 4
RrC 1 2 3
IPC 1 2 3
Total 9 11 20
2009/1/9, Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
Hi,
Thanks Tim and Greg for starting the exchange of ideas again.
Glen, could you please add Stephane Van Gelder to this drafting group?, as
requested yesterday on the call.
Should we need to set up a date/time for conference call or just work online on
the list?
Regards and have a nice weekend!
Olga
2009/1/8 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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|