ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[gnso-travel-dt] Re: Travel drafting team - some ideas after the conference call

  • To: gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: [gnso-travel-dt] Re: Travel drafting team - some ideas after the conference call
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 16:15:56 -0400


One additional question. How much of the Old DNSO budget money is still available and which constituencies have it banked?


On 15 Aug 2009, at 15:43, Olga Cavalli wrote:

I hope you are doing well, I just finished listening to the conference call recording. As per Avri´s request I am sending some initial notes and ideas to share with you and see how to move forward.

First let me summarize some comments made during the conference call:

1- Reasons for allocating additional funding for former councilors:

• As this is a particular meeting with changes in structure, continuity is pertinent for a small number of retiring councilors. • Could be good helping incoming councillors with the assistance of former councilors. • It is very helpful having more than one representative of a constituency in a face to face ICANN meeting.

2- Other ideas

• New councilors could participate in conference calls prior to Seoul, if we know who they are. • Could be good to have a clear understanding of how many would need this funding. • There should be balance between limited funds and the need for participation. • Constituencies usually deal with changes at the end of the year and these changes should not be a problem.

3- Reasons for not allocating additional funds on former councilors attending meeting:

        • This is not a special situation for spending money on coordination.

I also used Rob´s document as a basis for a preliminary analysis of how many former councilors would need funding for Seoul.

In reviewing the list I found 10 possible councilors that may not be present in the next meeting,( I excluded Noncom Appointees as their participation follows the normal noncom appointing rules, please tell me if this is a right assumption)

        • Commercial Stakeholder group: 6 six
        • Registries: 1 one
        • Registrars: 2 two
        • NCUC: 1 one

I am attaching the file I drafted for reference.

Some ideas on how to move forward:

It could be convenient to determine how many former councilors should need funding for Seoul.

One idea could be to ask each constituency / stakeholder group about this, specially taking in consideration that

"constituencies usually deal with changes at the end of the year and these changes should not be a problem"

Once we have a clearer idea of how many people should need extra funding ,then we can ask ICANN Staff if this funding is feasible.

Looking forward to receiving your comments.

Best regards, have a nice weekend.


Olga Cavalli, Dr. Ing.

<possible council list for seoul .doc>

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy