Re: [gnso-travel-dt] Notes after meeting in Mexico

[Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ken Stubbs wrote:

At the beginning of the second paragraph it states " Travel funding 
should not impact registrar fees".
I thought the principal her was supposed to be " Travel funding should 
not impact registrar *_or registry_ *fees.
I do not believe that the WG was intending to put the burden of travel 
funding on the registries either.
Please clarify here..
Thanks..

Ken Stubbs



Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> Hello Olga,
>
> An excellent summary of what was said IMO. I don’t see any point that 
> we raised that’s missing from your notes.
> Thanks for being so thorough. For me, this can be sent to the Council 
> list as-is.
> Thanks,
>
> Stéphane Van Gelder
>
>
> Le 10/03/09 20:40, « Olga Cavalli » <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
>
>     Hi,
>     hope you had good travels back home.
>     Included in this email I have summarized the comments recieved in
>     this list after our meeting in Mexico with Kevin, Doug and Stacy.
>     I tried to include all the ideas in a readable document, your
>     comments and changes are welcome.
>     Once we have agreed in a certain text, we should review it with
>     the Council.
>     Best regards
>     Olga
>
>
>     *_Comments sent to the Travel Drafting Team list after Mexico
>     meeting with Icann Staff
>     _*
>     All GNSO council members should be founded to attend ICANN meetings.
>     All council members volunteer their time and the GNSO amount of
>     work is a lot.
>     The amount of work in GNSO is highly increasing due to the GNSO
>     restructuring and the different steering committees and working
>     groups that council member participate in.
>     The workload of the GNSO is, at least in these times, enormous and
>     it would be unrealistic for the structures to work by volunteers
>     being stretched beyond limits especially without travel support.
>     This support may include WG and DT members as the Constituencies
>     may nominate.
>     It could be good if constituencies receive the travel funds and
>     they distribute these funds among their members with flexibility.
>     The budgeted amount for GNSO should be monetized and divided
>     equally between Constituencies (possibly SGs if there is a
>     proliferation of Constituencies).
>     Constituency allocation should be transparent but at the
>     discretion of the Constituency.
>     If in one Financial Year a Constituency does not utilize and saves
>     its allocation, that allocation should be reserved and rolled over
>     into travel reserves for the next FY in addition to the budget
>     allocation for the next.
>     A growth in the active participation of ALL GNSO Councilors in
>     ICANN meetings may enhance the face to face work of GNSO making it
>     more efficient and also it may also benefit the work on
>     teleconference meetings.
>     It may also benefit the participation by a broader spectrum of the
>     GNSO community.
>
>     Travel funding should not impact registrar fees.
>     According to the proposed budget documents, ICANN expects revenues
>     that will be $13 million *in excess* of ICANN's budget for FY10.
>     A rough estimate of the extra cost of funding all councilors'
>     funding for next year is $200K.
>     It could be useful to know a detailed breakdown of the GNSO travel
>     support budget.
>
>     Also it could help knowing the travel support provided to the GNSO
>     today and the monetary amount of travel support for ALL GNSO
>     Councilors.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.9/1993 - Release Date: 03/10/09 07:19:00
>