Re: [gnso-travel-dt] What now?

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Stephane,
thanks for taking the lead, I was very busy last week and could not follow
up on this,  my apologies.

In my oppinion, our travel drafting team has now two tasks to do:

1- How to allocate funds for Sydney
2- GNSO travel funds in the future

In relation with point 1, the summary of the requested information to the
constituencies done in the GNSO Council list is the following:


   - ISPCP needs support for three reps and supports the use of DNSO residue
   funds.
   - NCUC intends to use its remaining slot and would need additional
   funding to ensure fuller non-commercial participation in Sydney. They
   support the use of residual DNSO funds.
   - IPC intends to use the 3.5 travel supported slots, and may wish to have
   additional support to facilitate presentations and discussion on the IRT
   output.  They support the use of residual DNSO funds.
   - BC requires travel support for all three reps. They use of DNSO residue
   funds.
   - RyC:

 RyC requests full travel funding for one person to attend and participate
in the ICANN Sydney meetings in June 2009. For the funding associated with
the remaining three slots allocated to the RyC for the current fiscal year,
the RyC recommends any FY09 travel funds allocated to the RyC left over at
the end of June be rolled over to FY10 for use by the RyC for future travel
needs for GNSO activities.



Regarding the use of DNSO funds still remaining on ICANN books, the RyC
believes that a good use of those funds for the benefit of the whole
community in the long term would be to use them for improving the capacity
for remote participation in an effective manner and thereby minimizes the
heavy dependence on in-person participation.  We believe that this would
scale much better and be a much more fiscally responsible approach over the
longer term than continuing to try to subsidize travel expenses for what
likely will be a growing need of GNSO participants in the future.

In relation with Point 2, our drafted text prepared by our team after our
luch with ICANN staff in México recieved several comments in the GNSO
Council list. With this I must confess I found difficulties in including
objectively all in a new drafted text to propose to the drafting team to
review. In this sense I guess we should decide as a team which is the next
step to take in relation with this point.

In relation with your motion, I am not sure if we only have DNSO funds for
attending meetings. As I understand there are also some funds allocated by
ICANN for this purpose, but I might be confused.

So, my suggestions to move forward are:


   - We know the funds needed by constituencies, so we should inform this to
   ICANN, this could be one motion to be drafted before Thursday.



   - We should continue working on the text drafted after Mexico, that
   recieved several suggestions for changes and some other comments on the GNSO
   council list. Once we have agreed on this text there should be another
   motion to send this proposal to ICANN.



I am back in my normal agenda so I am available for drafting documents or
other needed tasks in the drafting team.

Regards
Olga




2009/4/7 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>

>  Avri,
>
> I'm happy to propose a motion, which I include below for the drafting
> team's consideration. Please be kind guys, it's my first one :-) Comments
> and constructive criticism welcome.
>
> If everyone's OK with the motion as-is, I would need the date the Travel DT
> was created. Does anyone have that?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stéphane
>
> Whereas:
>
> On XX the GNSO Travel Drafting Team (TDT) was set-up to work on proposals
> to optimize the allocation and the management of Travel Funding for the GNSO
> Constituencies.
>
> At a meeting held during the Mexico ICANN meeting in March 2009 between the
> TDT and members of ICANN staff, the TDT requested that all GNSO
> Constituencies receive Funding Slots for each of their elected Councillors
> at each one of the three yearly international ICANN meetings, with the
> understanding that it would then be up to each Constituency to allocate
> these slots according to their own internal processes.
>
> That request stemmed in part from the recognition of the significant, and
> ever increasing work loads, that GNSO Councillors face. Work which they
> carry out as unpaid volunteers.
>
> Since that meeting it has been identified that an amount of funds left over
> from the DNSO are available for use should the Council wish to provide
> additional Travel Funding to those GNSO Constituencies that no longer have
> enough credits left for their three slots for the final meeting of the
> fiscal year 2008, in Sydney.
>
> The funds identified are in the amount of 19,963.79 USD.
>
> Resolved:
>
> That the DNSO funds be distributed evenly across all six GNSO
> Constituencies in time for the Sydney meeting in June, with the express
> purpose of providing additional Travel Funding for those persons nominated
> by each Constituency as recipients to be of said Travel Support.
>
>
>
> Le 07/04/09 06:13, « Avri Doria » <avri@xxxxxxx> a écrit :
>
>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thanks for asking Stéphane, I would like to know as well.
> >
> > Anything we are going to vote on in Council at the next meeting needs to
> > have a motion in place by this Thursday.
> >
> > thanks
> > a.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 12:06 +0200, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I am unclear as to what the current situation is. Tim had put forward
> >> a couple of proposals, to which I have not seen much feedback. What is
> >> the rest of the drafting team’s understand of where we stand at the
> >> moment?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Stéphane
> >
>