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

[Greg Ruth <greg_ruth@xxxxxxxxx>]

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