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

["Olga Cavalli" <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,
So if I hear no comments by tomorrow morning should I send the table to the
council?
Olga


2009/1/15 Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> This sounds like a good approach to me.  Mexico is fast-approaching.
> Robin
>
> On Jan 14, 2009, at 5:38 PM, Olga Cavalli wrote:
>
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>