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

["Zahid Jamil" <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>]

In any case speaking with Kevin would be a good idea.



                                       
Sincerely,

Zahid Jamil
Barrister-at-law
Jamil & Jamil
Barristers-at-law
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
Cell: +923008238230
Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025
Fax: +92 21 5655026
www.jamilandjamil.com


      

Kind regards,      

Zahid Jamil
Barrister-at-law
Jamil & Jamil
Barristers-at-law
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
Cell: +923008238230
Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025
Fax: +92 21 5655026
Email: zahid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.jamilandjamil.com
 


*** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink 
***

-----Original Message-----
From: Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:26:22 
To: Anthony Harris<harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Gomes, Chuck<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; <gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx>; Avri 
Doria<avri@xxxxxxx>; Robert Hoggarth<robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-travel-dt] RE: Travel drafting team - some ideas after the 
        conference call


Hi,
Thanks Tony.
Could it be a good idea for our team to informally contact Kevin and / or
Doug and ask if there is any chance of having any extra funds for Seoul? Or
we do already know that there are some?
regards
Olga


2009/8/18 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 <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *To:* Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ; gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> *Cc:* Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> ; Robert Hoggarth<robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>
> *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:*
>
>
>    - 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
>
>


-- 
Olga Cavalli, Dr. Ing.
www.south-ssig.com.ar