Dear Nigel, Thank you for your proposals. Taking into account the nature of your suggestions (i.e., the original guideline is heavily redacted), I do not think it is feasible to post the guideline for public comments to the ccNSO members list. I propose that your suggestions are first reviewed by the GRC. I further propose that we advise the Travel Funding Committee to use the criteria from the guideline to evaluate applications we receive for the Panama meeting. Kind regards, ]{atrina -----Original Message----- From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel@channelisles.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:28 AM To: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv>; ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Any comments on Travel Funding Guideline? Dear Katrina, dear colleagues Please find attached a proposed revision of the Travel Funding Guideline which I would like the GRC and the Council to consider. As per Katrina's request that I "be more concrete and propose changes (exact wording) that you think would correct the situation that [I] described." I have done exactly that. Due to the extensive work I have done on this, a red-line version (which I had orignally expected to produce) would be almost unreadable, and I therefore propose this version as a new starting point. Because of the proposed changes, worked on for the best part of a couple of days), I think it is important that Council know the principles behind this proposal. 1. I started with the draft sent out by Katrina. This means that the baseline should include any and all improvements previously proposed. 2. I propose that the word "funding" be replaced throughout by "support". This principally to emphasis the bilateral nature of the support (i.e. in receiving funding, we support the traveller who supports the work of the ccNSO). The word "funding" can be perceived by some as ICANN simply paying for a junket - a perception that is to be avoided. It's a minor change, but perception is everything (particularly in Public Fora). 3. The proposed revision is based on the principles that (i) The Committee has complete discretion to award funding, but only to those who apply to it. (ii) Councillors should normally be funded - where sufficient slots are available and - the Councillor requests this (iii) Where slots are insufficient (the normal case right now) the Committee will decide who is to receive the support. (iv) Slots should be available only where an Applicant signficiantly contributes. (v) There should be no distinction between Councillors of different origin in qualifiying for travel support. 4. In line with the above, principles it's important to note there is no intention to make any change to the current balance of travel support between councillors and others whom the Commiteee might wish to award support to. The Committee however, needs discretion to deal with future scenarios without these Rules and Procedures needing to be re-written in flight. 5. The proposed revision is designed as 'technology neutral - that is to say it does not specifiy the number of slots - which could change upwards OR down. Instead gives general guidance to the Committee in percentage terms, whilst leaving the Committee complete discretion to depart from the general rule. 6. I conced that the formatting could be improved. I was conscious of the need to get something out for discussion and ran out of time to prettify it. 7. There are minor, business English improvements suggested. (For example it is convention in such documetns not to repeat the full name of terms that have already been introduced. e.g. "The Committee" instead of "The CCNSO Travel Support Committee". 8. There is one serious legal point that we need to consider. From May 25th 2018, GDPR will apply to those supported travellers who are EU Nationals, and we must ensure that our processing of their personal data is compliant. I hope the above summary assists in your consideration of the attached which I comment to you for your consideration. Nigel