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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree. And if the Council is going to submit comments, it should
include minority views as well.

Tim 
  
  -------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-travel-dt] Public comment period
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, March 26, 2009 5:42 pm
To: "Olga Cavalli" <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stéphane_Van_Gelder
<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx>

 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