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

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Stephane,
any other cooments / reactions?
regards
Olga

2009/8/17 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>

>  Thanks Olga for doing this.
>
> At this stage, I have to admit I would rather push for an alternate
> solution. I don’t see how funding people who are no longer councillors can
> be supported by the ICANN community. Further, there are logistical problems
> to this. Some constituencies won’t have voted until very late in the day and
> so we won’t have the list of which ex-councillors should be funded until
> then. And by then, it will probably be too late to add rooms and plane
> tickets to the bookings already made by ICANN.
>
> I think we should stop chasing the funding option for ex-councillors and
> just concentrate on finding possible ways for them to help their successors.
>
> If the group agrees, this would therefore stop being a Travel DT problem
> and become an issue to be dealt with at Council or SG level.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stéphane
>
>
> Le 15/08/09 21:43, « Olga Cavalli » <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
>
> 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