Travel Support to ICANN meetings -- post if you want some of it
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/
:-) I have an idea though, about perhaps developing some general guidelines that support the general needs and interests of the BC. Then, we need to have transparency, that way, we don't have to worry about an audit. we have discussed travel support in the past,and I did post more than once that it might be that the BC wouldprefer to fund two of three councilors in some instances, because a Working Group member needed sponsorship. We are now only going to have two councilors - so it would seem that we should probably want to see our councilors in attendance, but realize that that isn't always the case, due to schedules. However, what I'd like to raise is that with the new approach to separating 'church and state' [sorry for a "US -ism" and I'm not sure whether administration /management of the BC is 'church' or 'state' :-) ] e.g. separating administration and policy development, the BC members will be well served to have travel funding support available to support a chair or vice chair, or a working group member, not only policy councilors, depending on the essentials of the work needed AT a meeting that require face to face interactions. we really have a lot to think through. With the CSG, we don't actually know how much of the larger organizational functions may work. ... I propose that we have a BC briefing call and invite Rob Hoggarth /Ken Bour to do an update on various pending organizational time lines/changes, and let members ask questions. That way we are getting a neutral staff delivered update. Then we can have a BC discussion --onlist, or perhaps as a continuing conf. call. I think I proposed this before... One important point: I confirmed to Gary that I will attend Seoul; however, I really can't support making any decisions during the Seoul meeting that are limited to face to face participants. We won't have any kind of quorem at that meeting. We will need to have other mechanisms , and perhaps even extensions of time so that more members can participate in an informed, and meaningful way. Best regards Marilyn
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:38:47 -0400 Subject: [bc-gnso] Travel Support to ICANN meetings -- post if you want some of it From: icann@leap.com To: bc-gnso@icann.org
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/
participants (2)
-
George Kirikos -
Marilyn Cade