Re: [gnso-travel-dt] RE: Seoul meeting
What are the final guidelines here? Are ex-councillors being funded or aren¹t they? Sorry if I missed something but it¹s not altogether clear to me. Stéphane Le 02/09/09 16:55, « Anthony Harris » <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit : > Dear Kevin, > > I have consulted with the ISPCP, Business > and IPC Constituencies. Three people who > are stepping down from Council, but remain > engaged in the various restructuring groups, > would need travel funding assistance to be > able to attend the ICANN Seoul meeting: > > Philip Shephard > Tony Harris > Tony Holmes (since will be on NomCom may only > need some hotel/per diem assistance?) > > Kind regards > > Tony Harris >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: Kevin Wilson <mailto:kevin.wilson@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> To: Olga Cavalli <mailto:olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ; Doug Brent >> <mailto:doug.brent@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> Cc: gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx >> >> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 9:07 PM >> >> Subject: [gnso-travel-dt] RE: Seoul meeting >> >> >> >> >> >> Dear Olga and GNSO Travel Drafting Team, >> >> I am aware that there may be more requests to accommodate the extra needs >> arising from the GNSO restructuring for travel support funding than was >> provided in the Travel Support Guidelines. >> http://www.icann.org/en/topics/travel-support/ Although we have in the past >> made midyear adjustments to the travel support under Board guidance (e.g., >> limited GAC travel funding in FY09), in general we are constrained by the >> Guidelines. I suggest that, if the GNSO decides to request additional >> support, you submit the request and if the budget impact is small, we might >> be able to adjust support. If the budget impact is significant, we would >> need to consider what process and approvals need to be pursued. >> >> >> >> Best regards >> >> >> Kevin >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Olga >> Cavalli >> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 1:53 PM >> To: Kevin Wilson; Doug Brent >> Cc: gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx >> Subject: Seoul meeting >> >> >> >> 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 <mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> To: Olga Cavalli <mailto:olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ; gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Cc: Avri Doria <mailto:avri@xxxxxxx> ; Robert Hoggarth >>>> <mailto: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 <http://www.south-ssig.com.ar> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Attachment:
smime.p7s
|