RE: [gnso-travel-dt] Re: [council] Comments in relation with GNSO travel funding and policy

[Kevin Wilson <kevin.wilson@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Olga and travel support working group members:

A couple of points of clarification that might be helpful to you:


n  I think receiving a budget amount would be more problematic (and require 
more of your time) than receiving "travel headcounts or even partial 
headcounts" as we currently do, and ultimately will not solve the real issues.  
I shared the reasons for this with Zahid after your meeting in Mexico City.  I 
am happy to share more with the group by phone or in a follow up written 
document, if you wish.

n  As far as the $13 million in "excess revenue", I think there is some 
confusion on the numbers.  I spoke to Greg about this after your meeting as 
well.   $67.6 million in FY10 budget revenue.   $54.3 million of FY10 Operating 
expenses.  67.6-54.3=13.3mil.  However, in addition there is $5.9 million of 
budget FY10 non cash expenses (e.g., bad debt and depreciation) and contingency 
as well.   There also is assumed to be $7.4million contributed to the reserve 
fund, which is less than the approximately $10 million contribution called for 
in the Strategic Plan.

Also, I believe I promised to provide more details on the actual FY09 
expenditures by group as well as the costs per trip used in our FY10 budgets.   
Were there other #'s that the group expected me  to provide?

I hope this is helpful.

Kevin

From: owner-gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Olga Cavalli
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 4:07 AM
To: Stéphane Van Gelder
Cc: gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-travel-dt] Re: [council] Comments in relation with GNSO travel 
funding and policy

Stéphane,
thanks for your message.
As far as I know we have not recieved any  of the requested info after our 
meeting.
I think that your proposal of a motion is great, we could present it during the 
next conference call.
It should ask ICANN staff for the pomised info and present the text we drafted 
and the GNSO reviewed.
Any volunteers for drafting the motion? I could do it but on the weekend.
Best
Olga
2009/3/18 Stéphane Van Gelder 
<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>>
Olga,

Once again thanks for all your hard work on collating and summarising our DT's 
various comments.

I think we have a sound text here.

One question: what are the next steps? I don't remember having seen any 
response from ICANN staff on the numbers we asked them for... And moving on, 
how do we go about obtaining what has been requested in our summary? Should a 
motion be put in front of the GNSO Council?

Thanks,

Stéphane Van Gelder


Le 18/03/09 02:50, « Olga Cavalli » 
<olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<http://olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> a écrit :
Hi,

The Travel Drafting Team met with ICANN Staff in México ( Kevin Wilson, Doug 
Brent and Stacy Hoffberg).

What we agreed during the meeting was that GNSO would prepare a document with 
those ideas and requirements that GNSO has in relation with travel funding and 
travel policy. They expressed that this information could be very useful for 
them.

The drafted text is included in this email for your revision.

Your comments are welcome, then we will submit it to the ICANN staff members 
that were present in the meeting.

Best regards

Olga



Comments about GNSO Travel funding and travel policy

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´s 
participate in.

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. If there is additional work, then there is a need for additional 
funding resources.
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 or registry 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.