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

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Tim,
very helpful.
I think is a great starting point for discussion among our working team.
Please remember that there is an expectation that we can suggest a solution
to this problem.
I would very much appreciate to hear comments from representatives of other
constituencies.
Regards to all
Olga


2009/3/24 Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>

> Well, here is one idea. It is based on the concept that our *primary* goal
> is to get all Counselors to Sydney and so all constituencies will need at
> least three funded slots (even though they can use them as they wish).
>
> If that is true, then the RyC and IPC are set with what they have left from
> the ICANN travel funds. The other four fall short. If we divvy up the GNSO
> funds to those four proportionally based on the number of travel slots
> needed to get them up to three for Sydney, it would look like this:
>
>      **
>  *Left from*
>  *Needed*
>  **
>  *GNSO funds*
>  *Constituency*
>  *ICANN funds*
>  *for Sydney*
>  *% *
>  *$19,963.79*
>  NCUC
>  1
>  2
>  28.57%
>  $5,703.94
>  ISPC
>  1
>  2
>  28.57%
>  $5,703.94
>  RyC
>  4
>  0
>  0.00%
>  $0.00
>  BC
>  1
>  2
>  28.57%
>  $5,703.94
>  RrC
>  2
>  1
>  14.29%
>  $2,851.97
>  IPC
>  3.5
>  0
>  0.00%
>  $0.00
>
>
>  *7*
>  **
>  *$19,963.79*
>
> I know this idea may not go over well with everyone, but it is something to
> at least get the conversation started with.
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [gnso-travel-dt] Motion - Comments in relation with GNSO
> travel funding and policy
> From: Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, March 24, 2009 4:50 pm
> To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> 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 » <http://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 <http://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 » <http://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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>