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

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Zahid,
do you think that Greg´s comments are already considered in the present text
or we should add something else?
regards
Olga

2009/3/16 Zahid Jamil <zahid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> I agree with Tim.  There is no harm in clarifying this aspect.  I would
> also ensure some language to indicate Greg's suggestions are included.
>
> Zahid Jamil
> Barrister-at-law
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: 16 March 2009 21:18
> To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-travel-dt] Notes after meeting in Mexico
>
> Thanks Tim,
> other comments?
> regards
> Olga
>
> 2009/3/16 Tim Ruiz <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>
> > Date: Sun, March 15, 2009 4:00 pm
> > To: Greg Ruth <greg_ruth@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>,
> > gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx, Zahid Jamil <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>
> > 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
>
>
> [The entire original message is not included]
>