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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes we need to know that. In fact, it would help if we could get all
Councilors to let us know what they and/or their constituency are going
to need or expect in the way of assistance. Rooms are drying up fast,
and airfares are going up.

Tim  
 
  -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-travel-dt] Motion - Comments in relation with GNSO
travel funding and policy
From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, March 26, 2009 2:38 am
To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>, <gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx>


Avri,

Is there a list of these councillors or some way for us to obtain
confirmation that they will indeed be able to rely on Nomcom support and
should therefore not be included in our own calculations?

Thanks,

Stéphane


Le 26/03/09 05:49, « Avri Doria » <avri@xxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 
> Hi,
> 
> One other element might be that a few of the council members will have
> Nomcom support so that may allow them to travel on the Noncom budget
> with need just for covering hotel and expenses. This could lower some
> of the "needed for sydney" amounts .
> 
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> On 25 Mar 2009, at 10:40, Olga Cavalli wrote:
> 
>> 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, 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.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>