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

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks everyone!
I will send it today to to the council list, by the end of the day.
Best regards
Olga

2009/3/17 Greg Ruth <greg_ruth@xxxxxxxxx>

> I agree with Tim - it doesn't hurt to have it on the record.
> Greg
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> *To:* gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> *Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2009 12:10:40 PM
>
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-travel-dt] Notes after meeting in Mexico
>
>
> 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
> 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
> 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] 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 - http://www.avg.com/
> > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.9/1993 - Release Date: 03/10/09
> 07:19:00
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>