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

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Stéphane,
yes do that and lets see the responses there, as we are not getting much
feedback on this list.
best and have a happy easter.
Olga

2009/4/8 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
> “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 <
> 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 team’s understand of where we stand at the
> >> moment?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Stéphane
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>