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

["Anthony Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree that Olga has made a good suggestion.

The magnitude of the GNSO overhaul activities and
discussions, might appear to justify the initiative to
fund some few retiring council members (yes, I am
one of them), and as I recall it has always been
the custom in ICANN for councillors to step down
at the end of the Council face-to-face meeting in
an ICANN event., not before.

Tony Harris
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Gomes, Chuck 
  To: Olga Cavalli ; gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
  Cc: Avri Doria ; Robert Hoggarth 
  Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 10:54 AM
  Subject: [gnso-travel-dt] RE: Travel drafting team - some ideas after the 
conference call


  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:


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

    2- Other ideas


      a.. New councilors could participate in conference calls prior to Seoul, 
if we know who they are. 
      b.. Could be good to have a clear understanding of how many would need 
this funding. 
      c.. There should be balance between limited funds and the need for 
participation. 
      d.. 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:


      a.. 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)


      a.. Commercial Stakeholder group: 6 six 
      b.. Registries: 1 one 
      c.. Registrars: 2 two 
      d.. 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