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

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

I suggest we set a very tight deadline as we need to get back to ICANN by
Jan 22 and before that, we need to give constituencies time to get back with
their list of candidates.

Stéphane


Le 14/01/09 22:18, « Greg Ruth » <greg_ruth@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> Olga et al,
>       If all of us can agree on this approach, I guess the next step would be
> to set a deadline and announce (on the Council email list) that each
> constituency is asked to submit its list of candidates for travel support (and
> what kind - full, hotel-only or flight-only) by that date.
> Greg
> 
> 
> From: Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Greg Ruth <greg_ruth@xxxxxxxxx>; Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>;
> gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 10:50:15 AM
> Subject: Re: [gnso-travel-dt] ICANN travel support for the Mexico City meeting
> 
> I fully agree with your comments Greg.
> 
> Regards
> Olga
>  
> 2009/1/14, 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
>> <http://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 <http://olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/> >
>>> To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx <http://tim@xxxxxxxxxxx/> >
>>> Cc: Greg Ruth <greg_ruth@xxxxxxxxx <http://greg_ruth@xxxxxxxxx/> >;
>>> gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx <http://gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx/> ; Stéphane Van
>>> Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx <http://stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx/>
>>> >; Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx <http://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
>>> <http://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 <http://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 <http://greg_ruth@xxxxxxxxx/> >
>>>>> Date: Thu, January 08, 2009 3:16 pm
>>>>> To: gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx <http://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
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>  
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
> 
> 
>