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

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Ken.
Olga

2009/3/16 Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

> Ken Stubbs wrote:
>
> The registry constituency shares Tim's sentiments and
> wishes for the wording to remain as well.
>
> Ken Stubbs
>
> Olga Cavalli wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>