RE: [gnso-travel-dt] Public comment period

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Only if there is strong consensus of the DT or the Council.  Otherwise I think 
it would be better for individuals and constituencies to submit their own 
comments.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli
        Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 4:50 PM
        To: Stéphane Van Gelder
        Cc: gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [gnso-travel-dt] Public comment period
        
        
        Hi,
        should we include all/some/part of our latest comments for GNSO travel 
funds request in the public comments space?
        
        This the agreed text among our drafting team:
        
        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.
        
        
        Regards
        Olga