With so much "evidence" you've presented, Gabi, it makes it very difficult for one to advance any argument against:-) On a serious note, thanks for the clarity particularly in relation to "body count" as opposed to a sum of money. And yes, the ccNSO has done a lot of meaningful awareness & that's why the membership is increasing. I just had a concern about a possible negative impression that could arise from our "assistance" to governments. I now have no objection. Regards, Vika Mpisane .za Domain Name Authority Tel: +27 11 275 0082 Fax:+27 11 234 5022 -----Original Message----- From: Gabriella Schittek [mailto:gabriella.schittek@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 2:03 PM To: vika@zadna.org.za; ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: RE: [ccnso-council] travel funding request Vika, The travel funding is based on a body count, not a sum of money. Our deadline for submitting the names of the funded travellers to the Sydney meeting was the 6th April. Therefore, we can not "keep the money", as we have already passed the deadline anyway (the GAC obviously has a later deadline). We can carry over travellers within the fiscar year, however, since the fiscar year is ending by the end of June, we will lose the unused "spots". In total we could fund 18 travellers this time (+the 3 NomCom delegates), as we accumulated free "spots" from the last two meetings. We are funding 13 (+3 NomCom), losing 5 spots. Given that the programme really only "kicked off" before the Mexico meeting (it was not announced to members before the Cairo meeting, as we were not given enough time to develop a travel fund procedure. It was decided to only fund one Councillor to the Cairo meeting and to use the accumulated seats for Mexico and Sydney instead - hence the large amount of free 'spots'), I think the awareness has increased a lot, and I expect it to increase even further for the next meetings (in fact, we actually already received two applications for the Seoul meeting, although the application period hasn't been announced or opened yet!). We will also work together with the people from ICANN's Fellowship Programme in order to fund as many ccTLDs as possible. Again, I would like to underline that there is no risk of losing any funding in future, as the amount of designated "spots" is based on body count, not a general ccNSO travel budget. The 'formula' used for defining how many 'spots' each SO gets was based on the number of Councillors of each SO, as the idea behind the funding scheme was mainly to support Councillors. However, the ccNSO decided to allocate some of the funding to members instead. In any case, as long as the number of Councillors won't change, the number of how many people we can fund won' t change either. If you are interested in finding out more information about how ICANN is designating the funding, please have a look at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/travel-support/revised-procedure-11aug08- en.htm Our ccNSO travel guidelines are available at http://www.ccnso.icann.org/about/ccnso-travel-funding-04nov08.pdf I hope this clarifies, Gabi From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Vika Mpisane Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 1:32 PM To: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: RE: [ccnso-council] travel funding request I share Byron's concern. I'm also concerned that our re-allocation of the money to governments (out of all institutions!) could be perceived as a sign of the ccNSO's outreach efforts not being successful enough. May be we may need to look at what more we can do to make sure that our members make use of this opportunity in the future. I'm really concerned that money meant for ccTLDs ends up being used for governments & it is fair to expect governments (even from least developed countries) to have more financial muscle than ccTLDs. Can't we keep the money to fund more ccTLDs for ICANN Sydney? Or will the Sydney meeting happen after the end of the current ICANN financial year? I think it's very important we continue forging very close relations with GAC, but I'm not comfortable with the ccNSO giving financial assistance to governments. Regards, Vika Mpisane .za Domain Name Authority Tel: +27 11 275 0082 Fax:+27 11 234 5022 ________________________________ From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Byron Holland Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 12:39 PM To: 'ceo@auda.org.au'; 'ccnso-council@icann.org' Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] travel funding request No objection. One question. Any risk of losing ICAAN's funding in the future if we turn it back now? Byron --- This communication is intended to be received only by the individual or entity to whom or to which it is addressed and contains information that may be privileged and is confidential and subject to copyright. Any unauthorized use, copying, review or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please delete the message and notify the sender by reply email. Thank you for your co-operation. ________________________________ From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org <owner-ccnso-council@icann.org> To: ccNSO Council <ccnso-council@icann.org> Sent: Tue Apr 07 23:14:21 2009 Subject: [ccnso-council] travel funding request All, As you know we have submitted to ICANN 13 people who will be funded to travel to Sydney. We had an allocation of 18 to be used by the end of June 2009 and therefore have not taken up 5. I have been approached by the GAC Chair, Janis Karklins, who says: "As you may be aware, the GAC is currently working through mechanisms to ensure least and less developed country participation and securing financial support for their participation through the ICANN operational and budget planning process. As this processes and a proposed approach is for the next fiscal year, we are faced with some attendees needing support for the ICANN Sydney meeting. Would the ccNSO have space through its travel support from ICANN and if so, would it be willing to share its unused travel support for 3 to 4 government representatives from developing or least developed countries? The GAC stands ready to discuss with ccNSO or ICANN staff the administrative details in case of your favorable response." I have checked with Doug Brent and Theresa Swinehart who say that we would not 'share' any unused support but rather we would simply confirm to ICANN that we have no objection to them reallocating our unused support to some nominees put forward by the GAC. I think we should do this in the spirit of cooperation. Does anyone object? Cheers, Chris Disspain CEO - auDA au Domain Administration Ltd ceo@auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/> Important Notice - This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.285 / Virus Database: 270.11.42/2042 - Release Date: 04/08/09 05:53:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.285 / Virus Database: 270.11.42/2042 - Release Date: 04/08/09 05:53:00