Re: [gnso-travel-dt] RE: Seoul meeting

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Stephane,
please see the comments sent by Kevin to our request about possible
available funds for retiring councellors.
It is copied into the travel drafting team emails.
Regards
Olga

"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"*
  *
2009/9/2 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>

>  What are the final guidelines here? Are ex-councillors being funded or
> aren’t they? Sorry if I missed something but it’s 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<kevin.wilson@xxxxxxxxx>>
>
>
> *To:* Olga Cavalli <mailto:olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
>  ; Doug Brent <mailto:doug.brent@xxxxxxxxx <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<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 <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
>
>
>
> *To:* Olga Cavalli <mailto:olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
>  ; gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> *Cc:* Avri Doria <mailto:avri@xxxxxxx <avri@xxxxxxx>>   ; Robert Hoggarth
> <mailto:robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx <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<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>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


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