[gnso-travel-dt] RE: Chair Travel Funding

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for the quick reply Olga.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 5:35 PM
        To: Gomes, Chuck
        Cc: Olga Cavalli; gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: Chair Travel Funding
        
        
        Hi Chuck,
        these are some general comments strictly from a personal point of view:
        
        - In my understanding GNSO funds for travelling are for ICANN meetings, 
so I am not sure if this case applies to the general purpose. 
        
        - Several councillors did not make it to Nairobi, for different 
reasons, so this may allow some extra funding for other trips. 
        
        - ICANN needs a lot of outreach specially in the developing world (dont 
know if Russia is the case) so actions towards making ICANN role´s known and 
bring new people to the process are in general good ideas for me. 
        
        Did someone exchanged ideas with Kevin in Nairobi about travels? I 
could not attend remotely this meeting and I believe that it was cancelled.
        
        Maybe other members of the drafting team can share their ideas.
        
        Regards
        Olga
        
        
        
        2010/3/15 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
        

                Olga
                 
                I want to request guidance from the GNSO Travel DT regarding a 
special travel funding issue before bringing it to the Council.
                 
                I have been invited to participate in the Russia IGF in my 
capacity as GNSO Council Chair.  It is scheduled for May 13-14.  Because I will 
be doing this not as a representative of VeriSign, there is not a reasonable 
business case to request VeriSign to fund my travel, so I would like to get 
feedback from the members of the Travel DT with regard to this.
                 
                First of all, let me say that I have never used ICANN provided 
travel funding to attend ICANN meetings and I do not plan to do that for any of 
the scheduled ICANN in-person meeting scheduled this year.  The reasons for 
this are: 1) I do not want there to be even a perception of conflict at those 
meetings when I wear my multiple hats of Council Chair, RySG representative and 
VeriSign representative; 2) the RySG consistently took a position that it 
opposed ICANN travel funding except in cases of demonstrated need.
                 
                Second, let me say that I understand that the Travel Funding 
practice to date has been for ICANN sponsored events and that the Russia IGF is 
not in that category.  So one of the problems would be the possibility of 
setting precedents for other travel needs in similar situations.  For example, 
Other countries or geographical regions also hold their own IGF meetings, so 
what would happen if I am invited to those as well, to represent the GNSO?  I 
think this is a legitimate concern.  All I can say is that I was first 
contacted about the Russia IGF over six months in advance of the meeting and I 
have not been invited to any other country/regional IGF meetings for 2010 or 
after.  Clearly, if ICANN funding is considered for this, it would need to be 
done with the limitation that travel funds are available and that this instance 
would be a one-time consideration; any similar requests in my role as chair 
would have to be vetted independently and would have to have similar advance 
notice like was given with the Russia IGF.
                 
                I also recognize that ICANN has had to trim expenses and I 
would not want to negatively impact the ability of any GNSO members to receive 
travel funding to the Brussels meeting as a result of my request.
                 
                Any thoughts that any members of the Travel DT, including 
negative ones, would be appreciated.  I promised both Theresa Swinehart and 
Kevin Wilson that I would get back to them on this but have waiting raising it 
because of the huge number of issues that we have been dealing with in the GNSO.
                 
                
                Chuck