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

["Olga Cavalli" <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Greg et al,
I suggest to send the table to the council list by tomorrow and ask each
constituency to send their info by no later than Tuesday 20 of January.
Olga


2009/1/14, Greg Ruth <greg_ruth@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
>   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> 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 ˆ 2
>> ISPC ˆ 2
>> RyC ˆ 2
>> BC ˆ 1
>> RrC ˆ 2
>> IPC ˆ 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 ˆ Economy
>>
>> That is, the GNSO constituencies used the following numbers of travel
>> support "slots" (for a total of 9):
>>
>> NCUC ˆ 2
>> ISPC ˆ 1
>> RyC ˆ 1
>> BC ˆ 3
>> RrC ˆ 1
>> IPC ˆ 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>