[gnso-travel-dt] Seoul meeting

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Kevin,
Perhaps you have been able to see the exchange of emails in this list.
One question that has arised is that if it would be possible to allow some
of the retiring GNSO Council members to participating in the Seoul meeting.
We have not reached an agreement yet among the working team but I would like
to ask you if, from the travel funds perspective, this is something somehow
possible or not.
I will appreciate your comments on this regard.
Best regards and thanks
Olga

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 2009/8/18
Subject: Re: [gnso-travel-dt] RE: Travel drafting team - some ideas after
the conference call
To: Anthony Harris <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx, Avri
Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>, Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>


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



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