Thank you, Nigel, Very long but clear position. However, as you see, the guideline does not speak only of "first class" and "second class" Councillors. It has few other enhancements comparing to the current guideline. By not supporting the guideline in its entirety, you also dismiss the adoption of other improvements. I assume it was not your intention. Therefore, I would like to ask you to be more concrete and propose changes (exact wording) that you think would correct the situation that you have described. Thanks, ]{atrina On 20/02/2018, 18:36, "Ccnso-council on behalf of Nigel Roberts" <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org on behalf of nigel@channelisles.net> wrote: Fellow Councillors As I stated on the last Council call, I submit that where ICANN does not provide sufficient reasonable travel support within its budget for the ccNSO compared with the other SO/AC it has a direct impact on diversity and participation. Since the outcome of this discussion will not affect my personal position as regards travel support, I hope you will understand that I feel able to speak my mind directly as a volunteer/Councillor from a small organisation without fear of being perceived as advancing a personal position (conflict of interest) Small ccTLDs have difficulty enough in allowing their people the time to participate. Where, potentially, two out of three of the elected Council Members are not funded to attend Council, and Council's work and smooth running is reliant on the goodwill of large ccTLDs underwriting the work of Council by self-funding, there is a direct effect on participation and a lack of inclusiveness. This can be seen in the drop-off of people putting themselves forward for election, though it would be a stretch to blame this entirely on funding (I submit it is likely to be one of the factors, however). It is also inherently wrong of ICANN or an ICANN SO to provide for two classes of Council Members in its Rules. The two classes of Councillors are (a) those that more able to participate because ICANN funds their every meeting as opposed to (b) those people who could attend only one in three (if not funded by a third party, such as their employer). We should not forget that ccNSO Councillors serve in an individual capacity as volunteers to the ccNSO and to ICANN, and not as representatives of their employers, or the ccTLDs with which they are associated. I therefore propose that we amend our Rules on ccNSO funding and abolish the distinction between "premier class" and "second-class" Councillors (in support/funding terms) and, as a minimum in future (a) allocate all seats to a common pool where Councillors have equal opportunity to receive funding, and (b) continue to argue for sufficient resources to carry out the work of Council. (Please note I am not arguing for parity with the SO/ACs that I consider need to tighten their belts - just that as a professional organisation ICANN recognises the contribution of Council by providing the sufficient necessary resources to obviate the inherent bias towards Councillors from the larger, commercially weighty ccTLDs. I do not support re-adopting Rules that provide for a two-class entitlement to apply for support. If ICANN truly cannot find the funds to provide travel support for the whole of an SO's Council (when I note it provides considerably more support to other SO/ACs) then we (the ccNSO) should consider in the longer term reducing the number of Councillors by a third. On 20/02/18 16:08, Katrina Sataki wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > Here is the guideline on Travel funding. If you have any comments, > please let me know by the end of the week. If there are no comments from > you, next week I will post it to the ccNSO members list for public comments. > > Kind regards, > > ]{atrina > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ccnso-council mailing list > Ccnso-council@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council > _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council

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

On 03/07/2018 05:42 PM, Katrina Sataki wrote:

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.

Agree with both points.

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