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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Olga,

Thanks for that. To be honest, I¹m not sure I understand what the motion is
trying to achieve. Do we really need a motion to get each Council rep to go
back to their respective constituencies with our drafting team¹s
recommendations?

As far as the RrC goes, Tim and I have already been providing our Excom with
regular updates...

Thanks,

Stéphane


Le 23/03/09 01:26, « Olga Cavalli » <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> Hi,
> as promised I have drafted a motion about our comments in relation with Travel
> Policy and Travel funds for GNSO council.
> I recieved no comments from the GNSO list about our drafted text. We did
> recieve some info from Kevin Wilson, does anyone have any comment on this
> regard?
> 
> Here is the drafted motion:
> 
> DRAFT MOTION ON TRAVEL POLICY AND TRAVEL FUNDS FOR GNSO
> 
> Moved: Olga Cavalli
> 
> Seconded: 
> 
> Whereas:
> * During the Mexico meeting, members of the Travel Policy Drafting Team met
> with ICANN Staff members Kevin Wilson, Doug Brent and Stacy Hoffberg.
> * ICANN Staff members present in that meeting requested the Travel Policy
> Drafting Team to 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 drafting team submitted the recommended drafted text for GNSO comments
> to the GNSO Council on March 18th, 2009.
> Resolve:
> * Council representatives are asked to forward the recommendations to their
> respective constituencies for discussion and comment as applicable and be
> prepared to finalize the GNSO comments in the Council meeting on xxxxxxxxx.
> 
> Your comments changes and additions are welcome, best regards and have a nice
> week.
> 
> Olga
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2009/3/18 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Olga,
>> 
>> Once again thanks for all your hard work on collating and summarising our
>> DT¹s various comments.
>> 
>> I think we have a sound text here.
>> 
>> One question: what are the next steps? I don¹t 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.
>>> 
>>> 
> 
>