I think it's a good suggestion. I see an outside change that to propose it bluntly may harm our ability to encourage and bring on new talent who may not be be able to attend ICANN without community traval support and who are not (yet) elected to a position. I would suggest incorporating this, along with the existing suggestion in some way like this, by keepi gthe existing text and adding the following paragraph n the relvant place. "The ccNSO Council appreciates and recognises that due to lack of available funds, ICANN may not find itself in an immediate position to be able to assent to our request fully. In order to mitigate the budgetary effects Council confirms that the ccNSO would accept to habe the increase phased in over 1-3 year, and/or to implement, by ccNSO guideline a return of any travel support not required by an office-holder." How does this sound for a start? On 20/04/17 11:16, Peter Vergote wrote:

Hi all,

Sorry for the late answer but this has slipped my attention and I rediscovered the mail this morning.

I have a suggestion for your consideration and that could help digest the demanded increase in travel support slots. As we ask for more than doubling the number of travel support slots, we can anticipate an effort from ICANN to downplay our demand.

The draft outlines as a principle that travel support that is not used/waived by a ccNSO council member (chair, vice-chair, regional council, nomcom council) or liaison is attributed to the ccNSO community (meaning that a member gets the opportunity to apply for travel support). The draft further foresees that the current 4 slots that are reserved for the community is upgraded to 6.

Would it be an idea to put in as a principle that travel support that is not used/waived by ccNSO council members doesn’t go to the community but is simply “not consumed” and thus resulting in a cost reduction. Depending on the exact number of travel support that is waived, this could in reality mean that the increase is not 14 full support slots but substantially less. However without throwing overboard the possibility to have a full funded travel support for ccNSO council & liaisons.

Best,

Peter

Peter Vergote Legal & Corp. Affairs Manager +32 16 29 89 28 +32 474 790096 www.dnsbelgium.be<http://www.dnsbelgium.be/> [ns_punt_belgium_rgb]

Van: <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> namens Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> Datum: donderdag 13 april 2017 21:34 Aan: Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org>, "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> Onderwerp: Re: [ccnso-council] proposed submission to the ICANN FY 2018 Budget and/or Operational Plan, seeking an increase in the number of ccNSO traveling slots

Dear all, Following today’s call: if you have any comments on the included draft, please circulate to the list by Tuesday 18 April 17.00 UTC Thank you Bart

From: <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org> Date: Tuesday 11 April 2017 at 17:11 To: "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] proposed submission to the ICANN FY 2018 Budget and/or Operational Plan, seeking an increase in the number of ccNSO traveling slots

Dear councillors,

A drafting team was tasked to prepare a submission to the ICANN FY 2018 Budget and/or Operational Plan, seeking an increase in the number of ccNSO traveling slots. Please find in attachment the proposed council statement, for discussion during the next council call on Thursday 13 April.

TIMELINE:

1. Call for volunteers: closes Tuesday 28 March 23:59 UTC 2. Initial drafting: 29 March – 10 April 2017 3. Initial draft shared with Council: 11 April 4. Discussion initial draft Council: Council call 13 April + closure Council comments 17 April 5. Update Draft: 18 April – 21 April 6. Council vote on the draft: 22 April - 27 April 7. Submission statement by ccNSO Council chair: 28 April

Best regards.

Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>

Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO[twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ccNSO&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=nC4gfbyyEQpMRtwgTZRqwi_KEPkorJJN6BPIwtsjBWQ&m=DdfFDI8oZsOnlWbgIjkWwE3-vayYLMKBaQ7G7C-zFNU&s=CoLm-RBKHCTvzeyiArThcIvIEdGDtPPmf1Hj3cVyymc&e=> Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/[facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_ccnso_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=nC4gfbyyEQpMRtwgTZRqwi_KEPkorJJN6BPIwtsjBWQ&m=DdfFDI8oZsOnlWbgIjkWwE3-vayYLMKBaQ7G7C-zFNU&s=Yb2XtHNsf8-AVvOFTJkI2LRpHMnIaaNcJnl4XGHhElM&e=> http://ccnso.icann.org[ccnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ccnso.icann.org&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=nC4gfbyyEQpMRtwgTZRqwi_KEPkorJJN6BPIwtsjBWQ&m=DdfFDI8oZsOnlWbgIjkWwE3-vayYLMKBaQ7G7C-zFNU&s=K4UaERC2k8KO5jw6KqnwZTNo3SE0TFDB-aiAGklEArI&e=>

_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council

Hi Nigel, Peter, All, I would be strongly against this idea for two main reasons: 1) the idea of asking for more slots should NOT be reduced to the idea of asking for more slots for Councillors. It is for the ccTLD community. Yes, it is great if even smaller registries can stand for the Council and meaningfully participate. But there's a lot of work going on outside the Council. Personally I would prefer to have more slots for the community and then Councillors could request funding on equal footing (if they need it more than once per year) with WG Chairs, liaisons, other active contributors (and let's be frank - many of them contribute more than some Councillors - something for us to think about very seriously). 2) the main drawback of this proposal is that it significantly reduces the number of slots for the Community. Currently, if a Councillor does not request funding, the money goes back to the Community. So, theoretically (if all Councillors refuse funding) we can fund up to 12 community members. With your proposal the number of theoretical slots for active members of the community is SIGNIFICANTLY reduced to only 6. I do not think it is an acceptable reduction. Kind regards, ]{atrina -----Original Message----- From: ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Peter Vergote Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 2:53 PM To: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>; ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] proposed submission to the ICANN FY 2018 Budget and/or Operational Plan, seeking an increase in the number of ccNSO traveling slots Hi Nigel, That would work well for me. I think it will make our proposal more balanced and raises the chance that our request gets approved. Thanks, Peter Peter Vergote Legal & Corp. Affairs Manager +32 16 29 89 28 +32 474 790096 www.dnsbelgium.be <http://www.dnsbelgium.be/> Op 20/04/17 12:32 heeft ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org namens Nigel Roberts <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org namens nigel@channelisles.net> geschreven: I think it's a good suggestion. I see an outside change that to propose it bluntly may harm our ability to encourage and bring on new talent who may not be be able to attend ICANN without community traval support and who are not (yet) elected to a position. I would suggest incorporating this, along with the existing suggestion in some way like this, by keepi gthe existing text and adding the following paragraph n the relvant place. "The ccNSO Council appreciates and recognises that due to lack of available funds, ICANN may not find itself in an immediate position to be able to assent to our request fully. In order to mitigate the budgetary effects Council confirms that the ccNSO would accept to habe the increase phased in over 1-3 year, and/or to implement, by ccNSO guideline a return of any travel support not required by an office-holder." How does this sound for a start? On 20/04/17 11:16, Peter Vergote wrote: > Hi all, > > Sorry for the late answer but this has slipped my attention and I rediscovered the mail this morning. > > I have a suggestion for your consideration and that could help digest the demanded increase in travel support slots. As we ask for more than doubling the number of travel support slots, we can anticipate an effort from ICANN to downplay our demand. > > The draft outlines as a principle that travel support that is not used/waived by a ccNSO council member (chair, vice-chair, regional council, nomcom council) or liaison is attributed to the ccNSO community (meaning that a member gets the opportunity to apply for travel support). The draft further foresees that the current 4 slots that are reserved for the community is upgraded to 6. > > Would it be an idea to put in as a principle that travel support that is not used/waived by ccNSO council members doesn’t go to the community but is simply “not consumed” and thus resulting in a cost reduction. Depending on the exact number of travel support that is waived, this could in reality mean that the increase is not 14 full support slots but substantially less. However without throwing overboard the possibility to have a full funded travel support for ccNSO council & liaisons. > > Best, > > Peter > > Peter Vergote > Legal & Corp. Affairs Manager > +32 16 29 89 28 > +32 474 790096 > www.dnsbelgium.be<http://www.dnsbelgium.be/> > [ns_punt_belgium_rgb] > > Van: <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> namens Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> > Datum: donderdag 13 april 2017 21:34 > Aan: Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org>, "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> > Onderwerp: Re: [ccnso-council] proposed submission to the ICANN FY 2018 Budget and/or Operational Plan, seeking an increase in the number of ccNSO traveling slots > > Dear all, > Following today’s call: if you have any comments on the included draft, please circulate to the list by Tuesday 18 April 17.00 UTC > Thank you > Bart > > From: <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org> > Date: Tuesday 11 April 2017 at 17:11 > To: "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> > Subject: [ccnso-council] proposed submission to the ICANN FY 2018 Budget and/or Operational Plan, seeking an increase in the number of ccNSO traveling slots > > Dear councillors, > > A drafting team was tasked to prepare a submission to the ICANN FY 2018 Budget and/or Operational Plan, seeking an increase in the number of ccNSO traveling slots. Please find in attachment the proposed council statement, for discussion during the next council call on Thursday 13 April. > > TIMELINE: > > > 1. Call for volunteers: closes Tuesday 28 March 23:59 UTC > 2. Initial drafting: 29 March – 10 April 2017 > 3. Initial draft shared with Council: 11 April > 4. Discussion initial draft Council: Council call 13 April + closure Council comments 17 April > 5. Update Draft: 18 April – 21 April > 6. Council vote on the draft: 22 April - 27 April > 7. Submission statement by ccNSO Council chair: 28 April > > Best regards. > > Joke Braeken > ccNSO Policy Advisor > joke.braeken@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> > > Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO[twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ccNSO&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=nC4gfbyyEQpMRtwgTZRqwi_KEPkorJJN6BPIwtsjBWQ&m=DdfFDI8oZsOnlWbgIjkWwE3-vayYLMKBaQ7G7C-zFNU&s=CoLm-RBKHCTvzeyiArThcIvIEdGDtPPmf1Hj3cVyymc&e=> > Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/[facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_ccnso_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=nC4gfbyyEQpMRtwgTZRqwi_KEPkorJJN6BPIwtsjBWQ&m=DdfFDI8oZsOnlWbgIjkWwE3-vayYLMKBaQ7G7C-zFNU&s=Yb2XtHNsf8-AVvOFTJkI2LRpHMnIaaNcJnl4XGHhElM&e=> > http://ccnso.icann.org[ccnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ccnso.icann.org&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=nC4gfbyyEQpMRtwgTZRqwi_KEPkorJJN6BPIwtsjBWQ&m=DdfFDI8oZsOnlWbgIjkWwE3-vayYLMKBaQ7G7C-zFNU&s=K4UaERC2k8KO5jw6KqnwZTNo3SE0TFDB-aiAGklEArI&e=> > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council

My view was simply to add a willingness to phase any changes in over 1-2 years. I am strongly of the view, however, that if ICANN and the ccNSO expect attendance of Councillors at F2F meetings of the Council, then ICANN *must* underwrite this - Councillors already donate large amounts of their time - they should not be expected to indirectly subsidise the ICANN budget. So I oppose any retrenchment back to the 1 meeting per year standard. On 20/04/17 13:17, Katrina Sataki wrote:

Hi Nigel, Peter, All,

I would be strongly against this idea for two main reasons:

1) the idea of asking for more slots should NOT be reduced to the idea of asking for more slots for Councillors. It is for the ccTLD community. Yes, it is great if even smaller registries can stand for the Council and meaningfully participate. But there's a lot of work going on outside the Council. Personally I would prefer to have more slots for the community and then Councillors could request funding on equal footing (if they need it more than once per year) with WG Chairs, liaisons, other active contributors (and let's be frank - many of them contribute more than some Councillors - something for us to think about very seriously).

2) the main drawback of this proposal is that it significantly reduces the number of slots for the Community. Currently, if a Councillor does not request funding, the money goes back to the Community. So, theoretically (if all Councillors refuse funding) we can fund up to 12 community members. With your proposal the number of theoretical slots for active members of the community is SIGNIFICANTLY reduced to only 6. I do not think it is an acceptable reduction.

Kind regards,

]{atrina

-----Original Message----- From: ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Peter Vergote Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 2:53 PM To: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>; ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] proposed submission to the ICANN FY 2018 Budget and/or Operational Plan, seeking an increase in the number of ccNSO traveling slots

Hi Nigel,

That would work well for me. I think it will make our proposal more balanced and raises the chance that our request gets approved.

Thanks,

Peter

Peter Vergote Legal & Corp. Affairs Manager +32 16 29 89 28 +32 474 790096 www.dnsbelgium.be <http://www.dnsbelgium.be/>

Op 20/04/17 12:32 heeft ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org namens Nigel Roberts <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org namens nigel@channelisles.net> geschreven:

I think it's a good suggestion.

I see an outside change that to propose it bluntly may harm our ability to encourage and bring on new talent who may not be be able to attend ICANN without community traval support and who are not (yet) elected to a position.

I would suggest incorporating this, along with the existing suggestion in some way like this, by keepi gthe existing text and adding the following paragraph n the relvant place.

"The ccNSO Council appreciates and recognises that due to lack of available funds, ICANN may not find itself in an immediate position to be able to assent to our request fully. In order to mitigate the budgetary effects Council confirms that the ccNSO would accept to habe the increase phased in over 1-3 year, and/or to implement, by ccNSO guideline a return of any travel support not required by an office-holder."

How does this sound for a start?

On 20/04/17 11:16, Peter Vergote wrote: > Hi all, > > Sorry for the late answer but this has slipped my attention and I rediscovered the mail this morning. > > I have a suggestion for your consideration and that could help digest the demanded increase in travel support slots. As we ask for more than doubling the number of travel support slots, we can anticipate an effort from ICANN to downplay our demand. > > The draft outlines as a principle that travel support that is not used/waived by a ccNSO council member (chair, vice-chair, regional council, nomcom council) or liaison is attributed to the ccNSO community (meaning that a member gets the opportunity to apply for travel support). The draft further foresees that the current 4 slots that are reserved for the community is upgraded to 6. > > Would it be an idea to put in as a principle that travel support that is not used/waived by ccNSO council members doesn’t go to the community but is simply “not consumed” and thus resulting in a cost reduction. Depending on the exact number of travel support that is waived, this could in reality mean that the increase is not 14 full support slots but substantially less. However without throwing overboard the possibility to have a full funded travel support for ccNSO council & liaisons. > > Best, > > Peter > > Peter Vergote > Legal & Corp. Affairs Manager > +32 16 29 89 28 > +32 474 790096 > www.dnsbelgium.be<http://www.dnsbelgium.be/> > [ns_punt_belgium_rgb] > > Van: <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> namens Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> > Datum: donderdag 13 april 2017 21:34 > Aan: Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org>, "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> > Onderwerp: Re: [ccnso-council] proposed submission to the ICANN FY 2018 Budget and/or Operational Plan, seeking an increase in the number of ccNSO traveling slots > > Dear all, > Following today’s call: if you have any comments on the included draft, please circulate to the list by Tuesday 18 April 17.00 UTC > Thank you > Bart > > From: <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org> > Date: Tuesday 11 April 2017 at 17:11 > To: "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> > Subject: [ccnso-council] proposed submission to the ICANN FY 2018 Budget and/or Operational Plan, seeking an increase in the number of ccNSO traveling slots > > Dear councillors, > > A drafting team was tasked to prepare a submission to the ICANN FY 2018 Budget and/or Operational Plan, seeking an increase in the number of ccNSO traveling slots. Please find in attachment the proposed council statement, for discussion during the next council call on Thursday 13 April. > > TIMELINE: > > > 1. Call for volunteers: closes Tuesday 28 March 23:59 UTC > 2. Initial drafting: 29 March – 10 April 2017 > 3. Initial draft shared with Council: 11 April > 4. Discussion initial draft Council: Council call 13 April + closure Council comments 17 April > 5. Update Draft: 18 April – 21 April > 6. Council vote on the draft: 22 April - 27 April > 7. Submission statement by ccNSO Council chair: 28 April > > Best regards. > > Joke Braeken > ccNSO Policy Advisor > joke.braeken@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> > > Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO[twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ccNSO&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=nC4gfbyyEQpMRtwgTZRqwi_KEPkorJJN6BPIwtsjBWQ&m=DdfFDI8oZsOnlWbgIjkWwE3-vayYLMKBaQ7G7C-zFNU&s=CoLm-RBKHCTvzeyiArThcIvIEdGDtPPmf1Hj3cVyymc&e=> > Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/[facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_ccnso_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=nC4gfbyyEQpMRtwgTZRqwi_KEPkorJJN6BPIwtsjBWQ&m=DdfFDI8oZsOnlWbgIjkWwE3-vayYLMKBaQ7G7C-zFNU&s=Yb2XtHNsf8-AVvOFTJkI2LRpHMnIaaNcJnl4XGHhElM&e=> > http://ccnso.icann.org[ccnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ccnso.icann.org&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=nC4gfbyyEQpMRtwgTZRqwi_KEPkorJJN6BPIwtsjBWQ&m=DdfFDI8oZsOnlWbgIjkWwE3-vayYLMKBaQ7G7C-zFNU&s=K4UaERC2k8KO5jw6KqnwZTNo3SE0TFDB-aiAGklEArI&e=> > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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

_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council