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

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

Olga,
Deadline for a motion submission is today! Should I just send the motion to
the Council list and see what reception we get?

Stéphane


Le 08/04/09 22:00, « Olga Cavalli » <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 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 ³tread
>> the water² on it.
>> 
>> What does the rest of the drafting team think?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Stéphane
>> 
>> 
>> Le 07/04/09 15:30, « Olga Cavalli » <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> <http://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
>>> <http://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>
>>>> <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 team¹s understand of where we stand at the
>>>>>> >> moment?
>>>>>> >> 
>>>>>> >> Thanks,
>>>>>> >> 
>>>>>> >> Stéphane
>>>>> > 
>>> 
>>> 
> 
>