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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

That seems like a perfectly sensible approach.

Stéphane Van Gelder


Le 14/01/09 16:18, « Greg Ruth » <greg_ruth@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> We seem to have general agreement to something like the table Tim and Olga
> have provided.  We now have about a week to go till the 22 January deadline.
> Unless there is further discussion, perhaps a good way to proceed would to be
> to call for each constituency to put forward by some date (say Friday or
> Monday) its list of candidates for Mexico City travel support.  We can then
> see what that adds up to and where we stand (i.e. whether it all evens out, or
> we need more slots than ICANN is providing).  Does this seem like a sensible
> approach?
> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>> 
> 
> 
>