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

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,
Stéphane I think your suggestion about the motion is ok, my only question is
if the text you proposed should not be also somehow related with the needs
expressed by each constituency to travel to Sydney.

I sent the following tables to the drafting team list yesterday, it
summarizes what is requested, what was available and what has been used.

It could be great if we could agree about the motion´s text and then propose
it to the GNSO Council.

Any comments from the rest of the dteam?

Best regards and happy easter to all!

Olga





*Updated table of travel funds for GNSO Council*







*Total Available*

*Remaining for*

*Requested for Sydney*

*Remaining*

*Constituencies*

*Per Year*

*Sydney*

* *

* *

NCUC

5

1

0,5+0,5=1

0

ISPC

5

1

2,5

-1,5

RyC

5

4

1

3

BC

5

1

3

-2

RrC

5

2

2

0

IPC

5

3.5

 -

 -

*Total*

*30*

*12.5*

* 9,5*

*-3,5 + 3*



The previous version of the table is:



*Updated table of travel funds for GNSO Council*







*Cairo*

*Mexico City*

*Total per*

*Total Available*

*Remaining for*

*Constituencies*

*Meeting*

*Meeting*

*Constituency*

*Per Year*

*Sydney*

NCUC

2

2

4

5

1

ISPC

1

3

4

5

1

RyC

1

0

1

5

4

BC

3

1

4

5

1

RrC

1

2

3

5

2

IPC

0.5

1

1.5

5

3.5

*Total*

*8.5*

*9*

*17.5*

*30*

*12.5*


Best regards to all
Olga








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

>  Thanks Olga,
>
> I believe that at this stage, the urgent thing to do is to have a motion in
> front of the Council at our next meeting to address the pressing issue of TF
> for the Sydney meeting.
>
> This is what my motion proposal attempts to achieve, while at the same time
> restating the principle that each constituency remain in charge of the way
> it allocates its own slots.
>
> I think we should forward this motion proposal to the council list and
> “tread the water” on it.
>
> What does the rest of the drafting team think?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stéphane
>
>
> Le 07/04/09 15:30, « Olga Cavalli » <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
>
> 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 <http://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
> >
>
>
>
>