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

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

Thanks Olga. Done.

Happy Easter to all.

Stéphane


Le 08/04/09 22:27, « Olga Cavalli » <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 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
>> <http://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
>>> <http://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>  <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>
>>>>> <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>  <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
>>>>>>> > 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 
>