Dear Chuck,
these are the comments sent by Tim to start our exchange of ideas:
............................................................................
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
..........................................
Regards
Olga
2009/3/25 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To which comments from Tim are you referring Olga?
Chuck
From: olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Olga Cavalli
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 9:18 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder; gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-travel-dt] Motion - Comments in relation with
GNSO travel funding and policy
Thanks Chuck,
any comments on Tim´s founds distribution suggestion for Sydney?
regards
Olga
2009/3/24 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Olga,
I would agree with Stephane that a motion is probably not needed. I
think it would be sufficient for the DT to send its recommendations
but it is really up to the drafting team according to the procedures
of the DT.
Chuck
From: owner-gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx
] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 5:50 PM
To: Stéphane Van Gelder
Cc: gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-travel-dt] Motion - Comments in relation with
GNSO travel funding and policy
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.