Re: [gnso-travel-dt] Re: TRAVEL DRAFTING TEAM COMMENTS NEEDED - Travel funding request from the Vertical Integration WG co-chairs

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Doesn't one of them belong to a SG/Constituency? Can they help him?

a.



On 26 May 2010, at 16:42, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

> Olga,
> 
> We are just days away from Brussels. What should I tell the VI WG co-chairs 
> (neither have committed to being in Brussels without funding at this point as 
> far as I know)?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> Le 26 mai 2010 à 17:17, Olga Cavalli a écrit :
> 
>> Stéphane,
>> as chair of the drafting team I am not in the position of deciding anything, 
>> my role is just facilitating the dialogue and help sumarizing what was said 
>> in the list.
>> Based on what was written here I understand that for this next meeting in 
>> Brussels one of the co-chairs of the Vi working group will be there and the 
>> other can participate remotely.
>> If this is correct then you should communicate this to the group. If not 
>> please lets continue with the exchange of ideas.
>> Also please note that during the meeting with Travel staff in Brussels we 
>> will bring this issue as a topic of our agenda.
>> Regards
>> Olga
>> 
>> 
>> 2010/5/26 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Olga,
>> 
>> What is the decision you are making as chair of this DT? I am happy to 
>> communicate whatever decision you make to the co-chairs, as Council liaison.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Stéphane
>> 
>> Le 25 mai 2010 à 23:41, Olga Cavalli a écrit :
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> thanks everyone for the active exchange of ideas.
>>> 
>>> As I have mentioned before, the Travel drafting team has already scheduled 
>>> a meeting with Kevin Wilson and Icann travel staff in Brussels to discuss 
>>> this and other issues of interest related with travel funding, like 
>>> participation in Board meeting  on Fridays and possible funded 
>>> participation in outreach activities.
>>> 
>>> All of you are welcome to join in this meeting, I will send an email before 
>>> to organize these items in the agenda and summarizing comments that have 
>>> been already expressed in this list, also any other ideas are welcome.
>>> 
>>> As per the participation of VI co-chairs in Brussels, for what I have read 
>>> in the list one possible situation could be:
>>> 
>>> - one co chair is participating
>>> - the other co chair could participate remotely
>>> 
>>> Is this correct?
>>> 
>>> As per remote charing, I did this in Nairobi with the OSC CSG WT that I 
>>> chair , as I was not be there for personal reasons, and the meeting went 
>>> very well.
>>> 
>>> Another question, which would be the way to communicate this to the 
>>> co-chairs? Are you Stéphane as liaison to the group the one to communicate 
>>> this or it should be done by the GNSO?
>>> 
>>> Your comments are welcome and thanks again.
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> Olga
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2010/5/25 <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Thanks Maria. Completely agree.
>>> 
>>> Tim
>>> From: Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 13:58:46 -0400
>>> To: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Avri Doria<avri@xxxxxxx>; <gnso-travel-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-travel-dt] Re: TRAVEL DRAFTING TEAM COMMENTS NEEDED - 
>>> Travel funding request from the Vertical Integration WG co-chairs
>>> 
>>> Well that all sounds pretty reasonable to me: i.e. the travel can't be 
>>> supported this time but Avri's suggestion for making slots available could 
>>> help in the future.  It seems that the group can manage well enough without 
>>> a co-chair being physically present on this occasion, and there is no need 
>>> to risk adding a precedent to the ever-expanding set of exceptions and 
>>> emergencies.
>>>  
>>> All the best, Maria
>>> 
>>> 2010/5/25 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> 
>>> Sorry, I absolutely did not need to imply that they were unwilling to pay, 
>>> of course they may not have the means. As stated before, I don't even think 
>>> there's any need for discussion on the fact that they are working to help 
>>> Icann and therefore, whether they have the means or not, should not be 
>>> expected to foot the bill for coming. On the other hand, if Icann puts on 
>>> proper remote participation capabilities, they don't need to be physically 
>>> there so that works as well. I can coordinate the meeting on the ground, if 
>>> that is the option they run with.
>>> 
>>> Stéphane
>>> 
>>> Le 25 mai 2010 à 19:10, Avri Doria a écrit :
>>> 
>>> >
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > Have the council liaison chair the meeting with the assistance of the 
>>> > Policy Staff coordinator for the Working Group?
>>> >
>>> > Note: it may not be a willingness to pay, it may also be the ability to 
>>> > pay.
>>> >
>>> > a.
>>> >
>>> > On 25 May 2010, at 13:07, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> What should we do if none of the co-chairs are willing to pay their own 
>>> >> way to come?
>>> >>
>>> >> Le 25 mai 2010 à 18:31, Avri Doria a écrit :
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Hi,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> If at least one of the co-chairs will be there. I am probably ok with 
>>> >>> the answer.  And assuming that there will be good remote facilities in 
>>> >>> the meeting room, the WG should be able to get by.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> a.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On 25 May 2010, at 12:23, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> You make a good point and I was asking myself the same question. We 
>>> >>>> can work on a long-term solution, but I frankly don't see any way of 
>>> >>>> coming up with one for this short term need.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> I was thinking I should go back to the VI co-chairs and tell them that 
>>> >>>> there's really nothing that can be done at such short notice.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Do people agree with that approach?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Stéphane
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Le 25 mai 2010 à 18:18, Avri Doria a écrit :
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> On 25 May 2010, at 09:16, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> But I think the important point here is: can the Council as a whole 
>>> >>>>>> step in and donate a slot in cases such as these, and would that be 
>>> >>>>>> a fair and practical way of dealing with issues such as this one?
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Something like:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Every SG will donate N (orN/2 depending on the number of slots 
>>> >>>>> available to the SG) travel slots a year for emergency needs such as 
>>> >>>>> getting a WG chair to a meeting?  And if this is what the team 
>>> >>>>> decides I will take it back to the NCSG with my personal support (yes 
>>> >>>>> and including the recommendation that we would do our fair share)
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> But who would go first to solve the issue this time?  Obviously 
>>> >>>>> sometimes the person is a member of a particular SG group so 
>>> >>>>> hopefully they can do this.  But sometime she or he won't be.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Otherwise, are there any suggestions on the way to solve this since 
>>> >>>>> mine seems so very shot down.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> a.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>