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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Olga.  Regarding your suggestion "One idea could be to ask each 
constituency / stakeholder group about this", the RyC has started to work on 
this.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Olga Cavalli
        Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 3:44 PM
        To: gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Cc: Avri Doria; Gomes, Chuck; Robert Hoggarth
        Subject: Travel drafting team - some ideas after the conference call
        
        
        Hi,
        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
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        -- 
        Olga Cavalli, Dr. Ing.
        www.south-ssig.com.ar