Hi folks, To followup on my prior post: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00430.html I noticed this post by Kevin Wilson to the Council mailing list: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07445.html which stated that "My understanding is that the GNSO delegates to each constituency the decision for assigning these slots." I believe the *members* of the BC Constituency need to decide how those funds are allocated. For example, Marilyn Cade has been a great contributor to the BC, and might warrant full or half-support or one-third (depending on what fractions they permit). Sarah Deutsch and Steve DelBianco have done us proud at hearings in DC. Phil Corwin has also done a lot of positive work. Mike O'Connor participates on many committees and workgroups. The folks from CADNA have done excellent work. Similarly, others in the BC are doing the same. Perhaps some organizations are in greater financial need than others, and would benefit from the support. The members might rightly decide that it is better for one or more of the officers to participate remotely, or receive only fractional financial support, and that others are more deserving of that ICANN funding. CADNA has recently called for an audit of ICANN: http://www.cadna.org/en/newsroom/press-releases/cadna-calls-for-full-scale-a... That examination should also extend to the BC itself, as many of the questions raised are equally valid when pointed at how the BC operates. Gary recently asked who plans to attend Seoul: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00397.html Perhaps we should expand that question further asking who desires the funding from ICANN that is available, and allow the members to vote or otherwise arrive at a consensus as to how that allocation should be done. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/