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

["Zahid Jamil" <zahid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Olga,

 

For those of us who managed to attend the meeting in Mexico would I am sure
all appreciate that you have done a tremendous job!

 

May I also suggest that we add as a rationale the discussion we had
regarding the fact that GNSO must undergo restructuring and this enormous
task is unbudgeted and no additional resource is allocated for this purpose.
Hence, extended travel funding especially in this period is required.

 

Hence,  Additional work = additional resource.

 

I would like to echo the others who have appreciated your work in collating
our comments.

 

Best regards,

 

Zahid Jamil

Barrister-at-law

Jamil & Jamil

Barristers-at-law

219-221 Central Hotel Annexe

Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan

Cell: +923008238230

Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025

Fax: +92 21 5655026

 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com

 

Notice / Disclaimer

This message contains confidential information and its contents are being
communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended
recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this
message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may
contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law,
and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client
privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of
any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing
it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or
incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written
permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ken Stubbs
Sent: 11 March 2009 17:04
To: Stéphane Van Gelder
Cc: Olga Cavalli; gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-travel-dt] Notes after meeting in Mexico

 

 

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

> 

>