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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

I agree. Let¹s not go to a public comment period on this.

Stéphane


Le 26/03/09 23:42, « Gomes, Chuck » <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>