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

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Stephane,
I thought that there should be a formal request to constituencies with a
motion in relation with the text, my mistake.
I will change it.
But on the other hand and following the exchanges of emails in relation with
Sydney travel funds for GNSO, I am not sure what should the drafting team be
doing.
Could someone give some ideas or suggestions on how to start?
Regards to all
Olga

2009/3/24 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>

>  Hi Olga,
>
> Thanks for that. To be honest, I’m 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 team’s
> 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
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>