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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Specifically regarding travel funding for this, I personally don't think
it is appropriate. Given the RrSG views on travel funding in general,
that would likely be the SG's position.

Beyond the travel funding issue, is it appropriate for the Chair to
accept engagements representing the Council without Council approval? I
would think at the least, the Council should be informed as to what the
topic of discussion is and what the Chair intends to say/present to be
sure it is in line overall with the Council views/opinions.

Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-travel-dt] Chair Travel Funding
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, March 15, 2010 5:51 pm
To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, <gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx>


To my knowledge, the answer to both questions may be "no".

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 5:57 PM
> To: gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-travel-dt] Chair Travel Funding
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> My questions: 
> 
> - has the GNSO ever gained funding for anyone to travel for 
> anything other than an ICANN meeting?
> 
> - is there any budgeted source of funding from which this could come?
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> On 15 Mar 2010, at 17:18, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > 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
> 
> 
>