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

[Zahid Jamil <zahid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Greg. This was articulately mentioned by Greg in the meeting at 
Mexico to the agreement of many. 

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
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: Greg Ruth <greg_ruth@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 16 March 2009 01:26
To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Stéphane_Van_Gelder 
<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>; gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Zahid Jamil 
<zahid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-travel-dt] Notes after meeting in Mexico

Tim/Ken,
       I thought we had gone over this before  There is no connection; that is, 
there is no need to fund increased travel by decreases in other expenditures.  
Even a cursory glance at ICANN's  budget reveals that an extra $200K (say) for 
extra Council travel is about 0.35% of the operational budget.  Meanwhile the 
surplus (the difference between projected revenues and projected expenses) is 
in the millions, even after taking into account other (non-operational) 
expenses and provision for a "reserve".  There is no way extra travel funds 
would impact Registry or Registrar fees - the extra funds are a "rounding 
error" in the scheme of things.

Greg

PS:  And there is no way, either, that ICANN will abolish or decrease its 
existing travel budget for *other* parties, such as fellowships, NomCom 
members, ALAC and NomCom appointees - there are just too many stakeholders!




________________________________
From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Stéphane_Van_Gelder 
<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>; gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Zahid Jamil 
<zahid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 9:06:20 AM
Subject: RE: [gnso-travel-dt] Notes after meeting in Mexico


I agree with Ken. Any increase in travel funds should not be funded by
increases in Registrar or Registry fees. It should be funded by either
deceases in other expenditures, or by increasing fees collected from
constituents of other SOs. gTLD registrants are already contributing
more than their fair share to ICANN's budget.

Tim 


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-travel-dt] Notes after meeting in Mexico
From: Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, March 11, 2009 10:05 am
To: Zahid Jamil <zahid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stéphane_Van_Gelder
<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx

Hi,
thanks Stephane and Zahid!
Zahid I will include your remarks in a new version.
Any feedback about the comments made by Ken?
Regards to all
Olga



2009/3/11 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
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_ *fee

[The entire original message is not included]