Thanks Tim,
other comments?
regards
Olga
2009/3/16 Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
I prefer to leave it in. While I agree with Greg, I am not that
confident that ICANN sees things the same way, or even if they agree
today that they won't view it differently later. In reality, it
probably
makes no difference one way or the other, but certainly doesn't
hurt to
have our view on the record.
Tim
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-travel-dt] Notes after meeting in Mexico
From: Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Sun, March 15, 2009 4:00 pm
To: Greg Ruth <greg_ruth@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:greg_ruth@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, Ken
Stubbs <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>,
Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>>,
gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx>, Zahid
Jamil <zahid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:zahid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Thanks Greg,
reading your comments, should you suggest to delete the sentence:
Travel funding should not impact registrar or registry fees.?
What do others think?
Regards
Olga
2009/3/15 Greg Ruth <greg_ruth@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:greg_ruth@xxxxxxxxx>>
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 <mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
To: Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>; Stéphane_Van_Gelder
<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>>; gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx>; Zahid Jamil
<zahid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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
<mailto:olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wed, March 11, 2009 10:05 am
To: Zahid Jamil <zahid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:zahid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, Stéphane_Van_Gelder
<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>>, gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto: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
<mailto: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/
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>
[mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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 - http://www.avg.com/
> Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.9/1993 - Release Date:
03/10/09 07:19:00
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.15/2004 - Release Date: 03/16/09 07:04:00