Your attention needed: Travel funding (resolution included)
Dear Councillors, Your decision is needed! I have been made aware that the Travel Funding Committee and the Secretariat are facing an issue with respect to travel funding of the Councillors elected by ccNSO members. As you know the ccNSO has 12 travel slots per ICANN meeting. According to the Travel Funding Guideline (hereinafter Guideline, see http://ccnso.icann.org/about/travel-funding-12feb13-en.pdf please NOTE: this Guidelines hasn¹t been reviewed by the Guideline Review Committee yet) : * 3 slots are for NomCom Council members. If not used they fall back to pool for other eligible candidates like presenters, WG members, etc. * 5 Slots for Councillors who are elected by members (one per region). According to the Guideline one Councillor per region is funded per ICANN meeting. If the eligible Councillor does not use the allocated travel slot it falls back to the pool for other eligible candidates. Further, the Councillors from each of the regions need to come up with a rotational scheme (per year): who is eligible for travel funding. The Secretariat will implement this scheme. Some of the ccTLD related Councillors have not used their slots (for various reasons). The unused slot then falls back to the pool for other eligible candidates (non-Councillors). * Basically, and according to the Guideline there are 4 slots for non-Councillors (other eligible persons). This number will increase if Councillors do not use their assigned slot. The issue the Travel Funding Committee and staff are facing right now is that for some regions all ccTLD related Councillors indicate that one specific Councillor can use more than one slot per year. Whatever the arguments (and there are plenty!), the current Guideline clearly states another mechanism. This puts the Travel Funding Committee in a position to make that choice (between the Guideline and the decisions of the Councillors from a particular region). Therefore there is a need for the ccNSO Council to step in and make a decision. And, sorry, but we cannot wait for the call to discuss this issue because we need to submit the list of funded travellers ASAP. So here¹s a suggestion to move forward: 1. The Guideline will be changed making clear that it is effectively up to the Councillors from a particular region how they want to assign the slots (independently of the number of fundigs received before). Only if none of the Councillors from the region expresses a need for the travel funding, it will be made available to the pool for others. 2. This change is effective immediately (after adoption by the ccNSO Council), hence applicable for the Helsinki meeting. If agreed, here is a draft resolution to amend the Guideline. May I ask you to indicate whether you want further discussion, or object to it by 7 April 2016 17.00 UTC? Thank you very much! Draft Resolution Background According to the ccNSO Travel Funding Guideline as adopted by the ccNSO Council in February 2013: One Councillor from each of the 5 regions, on a rotating basis, will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be funded once a year). The Councillors representing the Region are to decide in which order the rotation shall take place. If no decision is made, the order is defined alphabetically. If a Councillor does not want to use his allocated funding, the funds will be allocated to the ³Other Eligible Parties Category² or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year. It has been brought to the attention of the ccNSO Council that in some cases this creates issues for the Travel Funding Committee and for some ccNSO Councillors. To address the issue it is suggested that the Travel Funding Guideline will be amended to say: For Councillors: One Councillor from each of the 5 regions will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be funded per meeting). The Councillors representing the Region are to decide among themselves who will receive funding to attend a meeting. If no decision is made, or if none of the Councillors from a region wants to use the allocated funding, the funds for that region will be allocated to the ³Other Eligible Parties Category² or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year, to be determined by the Councillors from that Region. Draft Decision The ccNSO Council decides to replace the current language of the section Criteria for Eligibility, the sentences starting with For Councillors and ending with This will be determined by the Committee with: For Councillors: One Councillor from each of the 5 regions will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be funded per meeting). The Councillors representing the Region are to decide among themselves who will receive funding to attend a meeting. If no decision is made, or if none of the Councillors from a region wants to use the allocated funding, the funds for that region will be allocated to the ³Other Eligible Parties Category² or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year, to be determined by the Councillors from that Region. The Secretariat is requested to publish the amended Guideline as soon as possible after adoption. The amended Guideline will become effective immediately after publication. Kindest regards, ]{atrina
I support the proposal wording since I believe it more accurately reflects the intent of the guideline to provide travel expenses for each of the regions equally. Nigel On 31/03/16 21:33, Katrina Sataki wrote:
Dear Councillors,
*Your decision is needed! *
I have been made aware that the Travel Funding Committee and the Secretariat are facing an issue with respect to travel funding of the Councillors elected by ccNSO members.
As you know the ccNSO has 12 travel slots per ICANN meeting. According to the Travel Funding Guideline (hereinafter – Guideline, see http://ccnso.icann.org/about/travel-funding-12feb13-en.pdf – please NOTE: this Guidelines hasn’t been reviewed by the Guideline Review Committee yet) :
* 3 slots are for NomCom Council members. If not used they fall back to pool for other eligible candidates like presenters, WG members, etc. * 5 Slots for Councillors who are elected by members (one per region). According to the Guideline one Councillor per region is funded per ICANN meeting. If the eligible Councillor does not use the allocated travel slot it falls back to the pool for other eligible candidates. Further, the Councillors from each of the regions need to come up with a rotational scheme (per year): who is eligible for travel funding. The Secretariat will implement this scheme. Some of the ccTLD related Councillors have not used their slots (for various reasons). The unused slot then falls back to the pool for other eligible candidates (non-Councillors). * Basically, and according to the Guideline there are 4 slots for non-Councillors (other eligible persons). This number will increase if Councillors do not use their assigned slot.
The issue the Travel Funding Committee and staff are facing right now is that for some regions all ccTLD related Councillors indicate that one specific Councillor can use more than one slot per year. Whatever the arguments (and there are plenty!), the current Guideline clearly states another mechanism. This puts the Travel Funding Committee in a position to make that choice (between the Guideline and the decisions of the Councillors from a particular region). Therefore there is a need for the ccNSO Council to step in and make a decision. And, sorry, but we cannot wait for the call to discuss this issue because we need to submit the list of funded travellers ASAP.
So here’s a suggestion to move forward:
1. The Guideline will be changed making clear that it is effectively up to the Councillors from a particular region how they want to assign the slots (independently of the number of fundigs received before). Only if none of the Councillors from the region expresses a need for the travel funding, it will be made available to the pool for others. 2. This change is effective immediately (after adoption by the ccNSO Council), hence applicable for the Helsinki meeting.
If agreed, here is a draft resolution to amend the Guideline.
*May I ask you to indicate whether you want further discussion, or object to it by 7 April 2016 17.00 UTC? Thank you very much!*
Draft Resolution
Background
According to the ccNSO Travel Funding Guideline as adopted by the ccNSO Council in February 2013:
/One Councillor from each of the 5 regions, on a rotating basis, will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be //funded once a year)./
/The Councillors representing the Region are to decide in which order the rotation shall/
/take place. If no decision is made, the order is defined alphabetically./
/If a Councillor does not want to use his allocated funding, the funds will be allocated to/
/the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of/
/the current fiscal year./
/ /
It has been brought to the attention of the ccNSO Council that in some cases this creates issues for the Travel Funding Committee and for some ccNSO Councillors. To address the issue it is suggested that the Travel Funding Guideline will be amended to say:
/For Councillors: /
/One Councillor from each of the 5 regions will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be f//unded per meeting)./
//
/The Councillors representing the Region are to decide among themselves who will receive funding to attend a meeting. If no decision is made, or if none of the Councillors from a region wants to use the allocated funding, the funds for that region will be allocated to the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year, to be determined by the Councillors from that Region./
/ /
/*Draft Decision*/
*The ccNSO Council decides to replace the current language of the section/Criteria for Eligibility,/the sentences starting with *
*/For Councillors/and ending with/This will be determined by the Committee/with://*
/* */
/*For Councillors: */
/*One Councillor from each of the 5 regions will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be f*//*unded per meeting).*/
/**/
/*The Councillors representing the Region are to decide among themselves who will receive funding to attend a meeting. If no decision is made, or if none of the Councillors from a region wants to use the allocated funding, the funds for that region will be allocated to the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year, to be determined by the Councillors from that Region.*/
/* */
*The Secretariat is requested to publish the amended Guideline as soon as possible after adoption. The amended Guideline will become effective immediately after publication.*
Kindest regards,
]{atrina
I support the revision. - kind regards, - Young-eum. Young-eum Lee Dept. of Media Arts & Sciences <http://mas.knou.ac.kr/>, Korea National Open University <http://www.knou.ac.kr/> Dept. of Media Arts and Visual Contents <http://macgrad.knou.ac.kr/>, KNOU Grad School <http://grad.knou.ac.kr/> ICANN <http://www.icann.org/> ccNSO <http://ccnso.icann.org/> Council member <http://ccnso.icann.org/council-members.htm> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 5:33 AM, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
Dear Councillors,
*Your decision is needed! *
I have been made aware that the Travel Funding Committee and the Secretariat are facing an issue with respect to travel funding of the Councillors elected by ccNSO members.
As you know the ccNSO has 12 travel slots per ICANN meeting. According to the Travel Funding Guideline (hereinafter – Guideline, see http://ccnso.icann.org/about/travel-funding-12feb13-en.pdf – please NOTE: this Guidelines hasn’t been reviewed by the Guideline Review Committee yet) :
- 3 slots are for NomCom Council members. If not used they fall back to pool for other eligible candidates like presenters, WG members, etc. - 5 Slots for Councillors who are elected by members (one per region). According to the Guideline one Councillor per region is funded per ICANN meeting. If the eligible Councillor does not use the allocated travel slot it falls back to the pool for other eligible candidates. Further, the Councillors from each of the regions need to come up with a rotational scheme (per year): who is eligible for travel funding. The Secretariat will implement this scheme. Some of the ccTLD related Councillors have not used their slots (for various reasons). The unused slot then falls back to the pool for other eligible candidates (non-Councillors). - Basically, and according to the Guideline there are 4 slots for non-Councillors (other eligible persons). This number will increase if Councillors do not use their assigned slot.
The issue the Travel Funding Committee and staff are facing right now is that for some regions all ccTLD related Councillors indicate that one specific Councillor can use more than one slot per year. Whatever the arguments (and there are plenty!), the current Guideline clearly states another mechanism. This puts the Travel Funding Committee in a position to make that choice (between the Guideline and the decisions of the Councillors from a particular region). Therefore there is a need for the ccNSO Council to step in and make a decision. And, sorry, but we cannot wait for the call to discuss this issue because we need to submit the list of funded travellers ASAP.
So here’s a suggestion to move forward:
1. The Guideline will be changed making clear that it is effectively up to the Councillors from a particular region how they want to assign the slots (independently of the number of fundigs received before). Only if none of the Councillors from the region expresses a need for the travel funding, it will be made available to the pool for others. 2. This change is effective immediately (after adoption by the ccNSO Council), hence applicable for the Helsinki meeting.
If agreed, here is a draft resolution to amend the Guideline.
*May I ask you to indicate whether you want further discussion, or object to it by 7 April 2016 17.00 UTC? Thank you very much!*
Draft Resolution
Background
According to the ccNSO Travel Funding Guideline as adopted by the ccNSO Council in February 2013:
*One Councillor from each of the 5 regions, on a rotating basis, will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be **funded once a year).*
*The Councillors representing the Region are to decide in which order the rotation shall*
*take place. If no decision is made, the order is defined alphabetically.*
*If a Councillor does not want to use his allocated funding, the funds will be allocated to*
*the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of*
*the current fiscal year.*
It has been brought to the attention of the ccNSO Council that in some cases this creates issues for the Travel Funding Committee and for some ccNSO Councillors. To address the issue it is suggested that the Travel Funding Guideline will be amended to say:
*For Councillors: *
*One Councillor from each of the 5 regions will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be f**unded per meeting).*
*The Councillors representing the Region are to decide among themselves who will receive funding to attend a meeting. If no decision is made, or if none of the Councillors from a region wants to use the allocated funding, the funds for that region will be allocated to the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year, to be determined by the Councillors from that Region.*
*Draft Decision*
*The ccNSO Council decides to replace the current language of the section Criteria for Eligibility, the sentences starting with *
*For Councillors and ending with This will be determined by the Committee with: *
*For Councillors: *
*One Councillor from each of the 5 regions will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be f**unded per meeting).*
*The Councillors representing the Region are to decide among themselves who will receive funding to attend a meeting. If no decision is made, or if none of the Councillors from a region wants to use the allocated funding, the funds for that region will be allocated to the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year, to be determined by the Councillors from that Region.*
*The Secretariat is requested to publish the amended Guideline as soon as possible after adoption. The amended Guideline will become effective immediately after publication.*
Kindest regards,
]{atrina
I would be more comfortable with an interim change to accommodate the Helsinki meeting. This will then allow us time to properly assess the feasibility of a more ³permanent² change in Guidelines. I would love to have the emphasis on rotation retained in the new guideline to avoid a rather remote scenario where councillors in a region may ³gang up² (I know this is a harsh word apologies) against a particular councillor their region. Take Africa for example: what if Souleymane and I decide to exclude Abibu from getting an allocation against his will? Notwithstanding, I am willing to approve the change if the rest of the members feel this is too remote a possibility to worry about. Regards, Vika Mpisane | ZADNA | +27 11 314 0077 ext. 602 From: <owner-ccnso-council@icann.org> on behalf of Young-eum Lee <yesunhoo@gmail.com> Date: Friday, 01 April 2016 at 00:34 To: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> Cc: "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Your attention needed: Travel funding (resolution included) I support the revision. - kind regards, - Young-eum. Young-eum Lee Dept. of Media Arts & Sciences <http://mas.knou.ac.kr/> , Korea National Open University <http://www.knou.ac.kr/> Dept. of Media Arts and Visual Contents <http://macgrad.knou.ac.kr/> , KNOU Grad School <http://grad.knou.ac.kr/> ICANN <http://www.icann.org/> ccNSO <http://ccnso.icann.org/> Council member <http://ccnso.icann.org/council-members.htm> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 5:33 AM, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
Dear Councillors,
Your decision is needed!
I have been made aware that the Travel Funding Committee and the Secretariat are facing an issue with respect to travel funding of the Councillors elected by ccNSO members.
As you know the ccNSO has 12 travel slots per ICANN meeting. According to the Travel Funding Guideline (hereinafter Guideline, see http://ccnso.icann.org/about/travel-funding-12feb13-en.pdf please NOTE: this Guidelines hasn¹t been reviewed by the Guideline Review Committee yet) : * 3 slots are for NomCom Council members. If not used they fall back to pool for other eligible candidates like presenters, WG members, etc. * 5 Slots for Councillors who are elected by members (one per region). According to the Guideline one Councillor per region is funded per ICANN meeting. If the eligible Councillor does not use the allocated travel slot it falls back to the pool for other eligible candidates. Further, the Councillors from each of the regions need to come up with a rotational scheme (per year): who is eligible for travel funding. The Secretariat will implement this scheme. Some of the ccTLD related Councillors have not used their slots (for various reasons). The unused slot then falls back to the pool for other eligible candidates (non-Councillors). * Basically, and according to the Guideline there are 4 slots for non-Councillors (other eligible persons). This number will increase if Councillors do not use their assigned slot.
The issue the Travel Funding Committee and staff are facing right now is that for some regions all ccTLD related Councillors indicate that one specific Councillor can use more than one slot per year. Whatever the arguments (and there are plenty!), the current Guideline clearly states another mechanism. This puts the Travel Funding Committee in a position to make that choice (between the Guideline and the decisions of the Councillors from a particular region). Therefore there is a need for the ccNSO Council to step in and make a decision. And, sorry, but we cannot wait for the call to discuss this issue because we need to submit the list of funded travellers ASAP.
So here¹s a suggestion to move forward: 1. The Guideline will be changed making clear that it is effectively up to the Councillors from a particular region how they want to assign the slots (independently of the number of fundigs received before). Only if none of the Councillors from the region expresses a need for the travel funding, it will be made available to the pool for others. 2. This change is effective immediately (after adoption by the ccNSO Council), hence applicable for the Helsinki meeting. If agreed, here is a draft resolution to amend the Guideline.
May I ask you to indicate whether you want further discussion, or object to it by 7 April 2016 17.00 UTC? Thank you very much!
Draft Resolution Background According to the ccNSO Travel Funding Guideline as adopted by the ccNSO Council in February 2013:
One Councillor from each of the 5 regions, on a rotating basis, will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be funded once a year).
The Councillors representing the Region are to decide in which order the rotation shall
take place. If no decision is made, the order is defined alphabetically.
If a Councillor does not want to use his allocated funding, the funds will be allocated to
the ³Other Eligible Parties Category² or remain available for use during the remainder of
the current fiscal year.
It has been brought to the attention of the ccNSO Council that in some cases this creates issues for the Travel Funding Committee and for some ccNSO Councillors. To address the issue it is suggested that the Travel Funding Guideline will be amended to say:
For Councillors:
One Councillor from each of the 5 regions will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be funded per meeting).
The Councillors representing the Region are to decide among themselves who will receive funding to attend a meeting. If no decision is made, or if none of the Councillors from a region wants to use the allocated funding, the funds for that region will be allocated to the ³Other Eligible Parties Category² or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year, to be determined by the Councillors from that Region.
Draft Decision The ccNSO Council decides to replace the current language of the section Criteria for Eligibility, the sentences starting with For Councillors and ending with This will be determined by the Committee with:
For Councillors:
One Councillor from each of the 5 regions will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be funded per meeting).
The Councillors representing the Region are to decide among themselves who will receive funding to attend a meeting. If no decision is made, or if none of the Councillors from a region wants to use the allocated funding, the funds for that region will be allocated to the ³Other Eligible Parties Category² or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year, to be determined by the Councillors from that Region.
The Secretariat is requested to publish the amended Guideline as soon as possible after adoption. The amended Guideline will become effective immediately after publication.
Kindest regards,
]{atrina
Vika
I would be more comfortable with an interim change to accommodate the Helsinki meeting.
It's a reasonable proposition. In fact, I would hope and expect that we would address all the apparent problems with travel expenses for Councillors within the next 6-12 months, not just this one foible. The current issue that Katrina is addressing is that where there is funding for participation of a region, and when one or two Councillors (who may be from a large registry) self-funds, that funding, on one interpretation of the rules imposed on the ccNSO, lost to that region, no matter what the region may decide, even unanimously. Personally, I don't think that's correct, but in any event the proposal makes it clear. There are more generic issues within the whole background to travel expenses for ccnSO/Councillors, the purpose of which existing is to make the playing field equal between small, medium and large registries for participation. As said, I'm happy to approve Katrina's wording as is, and confidently have the expectation that we would be looking into the whole background of travel expenses 'ab initio' between now and Puerto Rico, and taking account in particular, your concerns as expressed below. I trust that's the appropriate way forward? Nigel On 01/04/16 10:20, Vika Mpisane wrote:
I would be more comfortable with an interim change to accommodate the Helsinki meeting. This will then allow us time to properly assess the feasibility of a more “permanent” change in Guidelines. I would love to have the emphasis on rotation retained in the new guideline to avoid a rather remote scenario where councillors in a region may “gang up” (I know this is a harsh word – apologies) against a particular councillor their region. Take Africa for example: what if Souleymane and I decide to exclude Abibu from getting an allocation against his will?
Notwithstanding, I am willing to approve the change if the rest of the members feel this is too remote a possibility to worry about.
Regards,
Vika Mpisane | ZADNA | +27 11 314 0077 ext. 602
From: <owner-ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org>> on behalf of Young-eum Lee <yesunhoo@gmail.com <mailto:yesunhoo@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, 01 April 2016 at 00:34 To: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv <mailto:katrina@nic.lv>> Cc: "ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>" <ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Your attention needed: Travel funding (resolution included)
I support the revision.
- kind regards, - Young-eum.
Young-eum Lee Dept. of Media Arts & Sciences <http://mas.knou.ac.kr/>, Korea National Open University <http://www.knou.ac.kr/> Dept. of Media Arts and Visual Contents <http://macgrad.knou.ac.kr/>, KNOU Grad School <http://grad.knou.ac.kr/> ICANN <http://www.icann.org/> ccNSO <http://ccnso.icann.org/> Council member <http://ccnso.icann.org/council-members.htm>
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 5:33 AM, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv <mailto:katrina@nic.lv>> wrote:
Dear Councillors,
*Your decision is needed! *
____
I have been made aware that the Travel Funding Committee and the Secretariat are facing an issue with respect to travel funding of the Councillors elected by ccNSO members.
As you know the ccNSO has 12 travel slots per ICANN meeting. According to the Travel Funding Guideline (hereinafter – Guideline, see http://ccnso.icann.org/about/travel-funding-12feb13-en.pdf – please NOTE: this Guidelines hasn’t been reviewed by the Guideline Review Committee yet) :
* 3 slots are for NomCom Council members. If not used they fall back to pool for other eligible candidates like presenters, WG members, etc.____ * 5 Slots for Councillors who are elected by members (one per region). According to the Guideline one Councillor per region is funded per ICANN meeting. If the eligible Councillor does not use the allocated travel slot it falls back to the pool for other eligible candidates. Further, the Councillors from each of the regions need to come up with a rotational scheme (per year): who is eligible for travel funding. The Secretariat will implement this scheme. Some of the ccTLD related Councillors have not used their slots (for various reasons). The unused slot then falls back to the pool for other eligible candidates (non-Councillors).____ * Basically, and according to the Guideline there are 4 slots for non-Councillors (other eligible persons). This number will increase if Councillors do not use their assigned slot.
The issue the Travel Funding Committee and staff are facing right now is that for some regions all ccTLD related Councillors indicate that one specific Councillor can use more than one slot per year. Whatever the arguments (and there are plenty!), the current Guideline clearly states another mechanism. This puts the Travel Funding Committee in a position to make that choice (between the Guideline and the decisions of the Councillors from a particular region). Therefore there is a need for the ccNSO Council to step in and make a decision. And, sorry, but we cannot wait for the call to discuss this issue because we need to submit the list of funded travellers ASAP.
So here’s a suggestion to move forward:
1. The Guideline will be changed making clear that it is effectively up to the Councillors from a particular region how they want to assign the slots (independently of the number of fundigs received before). Only if none of the Councillors from the region expresses a need for the travel funding, it will be made available to the pool for others. 2. This change is effective immediately (after adoption by the ccNSO Council), hence applicable for the Helsinki meeting.
If agreed, here is a draft resolution to amend the Guideline.
*May I ask you to indicate whether you want further discussion, or object to it by 7 April 2016 17.00 UTC? Thank you very much!*
Draft Resolution
Background
According to the ccNSO Travel Funding Guideline as adopted by the ccNSO Council in February 2013:
/One Councillor from each of the 5 regions, on a rotating basis, will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be //funded once a year)./
____
/The Councillors representing the Region are to decide in which order the rotation shall/____
/take place. If no decision is made, the order is defined alphabetically./____
/If a Councillor does not want to use his allocated funding, the funds will be allocated to/____
/the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of/____
/the current fiscal year./____
/ /
It has been brought to the attention of the ccNSO Council that in some cases this creates issues for the Travel Funding Committee and for some ccNSO Councillors. To address the issue it is suggested that the Travel Funding Guideline will be amended to say:
/For Councillors: ____/
/One Councillor from each of the 5 regions will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be f//unded per meeting)./
//
/The Councillors representing the Region are to decide among themselves who will receive funding to attend a meeting. If no decision is made, or if none of the Councillors from a region wants to use the allocated funding, the funds for that region will be allocated to the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year, to be determined by the Councillors from that Region./
/ /
/*Draft Decision*/
*The ccNSO Council decides to replace the current language of the section/Criteria for Eligibility,/the sentences starting with *
*/For Councillors/and ending with/This will be determined by the Committee/with://*
/* */
/*For Councillors: ____*/
/*One Councillor from each of the 5 regions will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be f*//*unded per meeting).*/
/**/
/*The Councillors representing the Region are to decide among themselves who will receive funding to attend a meeting. If no decision is made, or if none of the Councillors from a region wants to use the allocated funding, the funds for that region will be allocated to the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year, to be determined by the Councillors from that Region.*/
/* */
*The Secretariat is requested to publish the amended Guideline as soon as possible after adoption. The amended Guideline will become effective immediately after publication.*
Kindest regards,
]{atrina
Hi all, I’m in favor of Nigel’s proposed way forward. So, in support for the resolution. In agreement to look into this in the coming months. Best, Peter Peter Vergote Legal & Corp. Affairs Manager +32 16 29 89 28 +32 474 790096 www.dnsbelgium.be <http://www.dnsbelgium.be/> Op 1/04/16 11:42 heeft owner-ccnso-council@icann.org namens Nigel Roberts <owner-ccnso-council@icann.org namens nigel@channelisles.net> geschreven:
Vika
I would be more comfortable with an interim change to accommodate the Helsinki meeting.
It's a reasonable proposition.
In fact, I would hope and expect that we would address all the apparent problems with travel expenses for Councillors within the next 6-12 months, not just this one foible.
The current issue that Katrina is addressing is that where there is funding for participation of a region, and when one or two Councillors (who may be from a large registry) self-funds, that funding, on one interpretation of the rules imposed on the ccNSO, lost to that region, no matter what the region may decide, even unanimously.
Personally, I don't think that's correct, but in any event the proposal makes it clear.
There are more generic issues within the whole background to travel expenses for ccnSO/Councillors, the purpose of which existing is to make the playing field equal between small, medium and large registries for participation.
As said, I'm happy to approve Katrina's wording as is, and confidently have the expectation that we would be looking into the whole background of travel expenses 'ab initio' between now and Puerto Rico, and taking account in particular, your concerns as expressed below.
I trust that's the appropriate way forward?
Nigel
On 01/04/16 10:20, Vika Mpisane wrote:
I would be more comfortable with an interim change to accommodate the Helsinki meeting. This will then allow us time to properly assess the feasibility of a more “permanent” change in Guidelines. I would love to have the emphasis on rotation retained in the new guideline to avoid a rather remote scenario where councillors in a region may “gang up” (I know this is a harsh word – apologies) against a particular councillor their region. Take Africa for example: what if Souleymane and I decide to exclude Abibu from getting an allocation against his will?
Notwithstanding, I am willing to approve the change if the rest of the members feel this is too remote a possibility to worry about.
Regards,
Vika Mpisane | ZADNA | +27 11 314 0077 ext. 602
From: <owner-ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org>> on behalf of Young-eum Lee <yesunhoo@gmail.com <mailto:yesunhoo@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, 01 April 2016 at 00:34 To: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv <mailto:katrina@nic.lv>> Cc: "ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>" <ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Your attention needed: Travel funding (resolution included)
I support the revision.
- kind regards, - Young-eum.
Young-eum Lee Dept. of Media Arts & Sciences <http://mas.knou.ac.kr/>, Korea National Open University <http://www.knou.ac.kr/> Dept. of Media Arts and Visual Contents <http://macgrad.knou.ac.kr/>, KNOU Grad School <http://grad.knou.ac.kr/> ICANN <http://www.icann.org/> ccNSO <http://ccnso.icann.org/> Council member <http://ccnso.icann.org/council-members.htm>
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 5:33 AM, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv <mailto:katrina@nic.lv>> wrote:
Dear Councillors,
*Your decision is needed! *
____
I have been made aware that the Travel Funding Committee and the Secretariat are facing an issue with respect to travel funding of the Councillors elected by ccNSO members.
As you know the ccNSO has 12 travel slots per ICANN meeting. According to the Travel Funding Guideline (hereinafter – Guideline, see http://ccnso.icann.org/about/travel-funding-12feb13-en.pdf – please NOTE: this Guidelines hasn’t been reviewed by the Guideline Review Committee yet) :
* 3 slots are for NomCom Council members. If not used they fall back to pool for other eligible candidates like presenters, WG members, etc.____ * 5 Slots for Councillors who are elected by members (one per region). According to the Guideline one Councillor per region is funded per ICANN meeting. If the eligible Councillor does not use the allocated travel slot it falls back to the pool for other eligible candidates. Further, the Councillors from each of the regions need to come up with a rotational scheme (per year): who is eligible for travel funding. The Secretariat will implement this scheme. Some of the ccTLD related Councillors have not used their slots (for various reasons). The unused slot then falls back to the pool for other eligible candidates (non-Councillors).____ * Basically, and according to the Guideline there are 4 slots for non-Councillors (other eligible persons). This number will increase if Councillors do not use their assigned slot.
The issue the Travel Funding Committee and staff are facing right now is that for some regions all ccTLD related Councillors indicate that one specific Councillor can use more than one slot per year. Whatever the arguments (and there are plenty!), the current Guideline clearly states another mechanism. This puts the Travel Funding Committee in a position to make that choice (between the Guideline and the decisions of the Councillors from a particular region). Therefore there is a need for the ccNSO Council to step in and make a decision. And, sorry, but we cannot wait for the call to discuss this issue because we need to submit the list of funded travellers ASAP.
So here’s a suggestion to move forward:
1. The Guideline will be changed making clear that it is effectively up to the Councillors from a particular region how they want to assign the slots (independently of the number of fundigs received before). Only if none of the Councillors from the region expresses a need for the travel funding, it will be made available to the pool for others. 2. This change is effective immediately (after adoption by the ccNSO Council), hence applicable for the Helsinki meeting.
If agreed, here is a draft resolution to amend the Guideline.
*May I ask you to indicate whether you want further discussion, or object to it by 7 April 2016 17.00 UTC? Thank you very much!*
Draft Resolution
Background
According to the ccNSO Travel Funding Guideline as adopted by the ccNSO Council in February 2013:
/One Councillor from each of the 5 regions, on a rotating basis, will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be //funded once a year)./
____
/The Councillors representing the Region are to decide in which order the rotation shall/____
/take place. If no decision is made, the order is defined alphabetically./____
/If a Councillor does not want to use his allocated funding, the funds will be allocated to/____
/the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of/____
/the current fiscal year./____
/ /
It has been brought to the attention of the ccNSO Council that in some cases this creates issues for the Travel Funding Committee and for some ccNSO Councillors. To address the issue it is suggested that the Travel Funding Guideline will be amended to say:
/For Councillors: ____/
/One Councillor from each of the 5 regions will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be f//unded per meeting)./
//
/The Councillors representing the Region are to decide among themselves who will receive funding to attend a meeting. If no decision is made, or if none of the Councillors from a region wants to use the allocated funding, the funds for that region will be allocated to the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year, to be determined by the Councillors from that Region./
/ /
/*Draft Decision*/
*The ccNSO Council decides to replace the current language of the section/Criteria for Eligibility,/the sentences starting with *
*/For Councillors/and ending with/This will be determined by the Committee/with://*
/* */
/*For Councillors: ____*/
/*One Councillor from each of the 5 regions will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be f*//*unded per meeting).*/
/**/
/*The Councillors representing the Region are to decide among themselves who will receive funding to attend a meeting. If no decision is made, or if none of the Councillors from a region wants to use the allocated funding, the funds for that region will be allocated to the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year, to be determined by the Councillors from that Region.*/
/* */
*The Secretariat is requested to publish the amended Guideline as soon as possible after adoption. The amended Guideline will become effective immediately after publication.*
Kindest regards,
]{atrina
Apologies, Nigel, I got pushed to something else here at work. I am fine to support the guideline change especially on your proposed basis. A holistic review of the travel subsidy should help us address any arising problems. Regards, Vika Mpisane | ZADNA | +27 11 314 0077 ext. 602 On 2016/04/01, 11:42, "Nigel Roberts" <owner-ccnso-council@icann.org on behalf of nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
Vika
I would be more comfortable with an interim change to accommodate the Helsinki meeting.
It's a reasonable proposition.
In fact, I would hope and expect that we would address all the apparent problems with travel expenses for Councillors within the next 6-12 months, not just this one foible.
The current issue that Katrina is addressing is that where there is funding for participation of a region, and when one or two Councillors (who may be from a large registry) self-funds, that funding, on one interpretation of the rules imposed on the ccNSO, lost to that region, no matter what the region may decide, even unanimously.
Personally, I don't think that's correct, but in any event the proposal makes it clear.
There are more generic issues within the whole background to travel expenses for ccnSO/Councillors, the purpose of which existing is to make the playing field equal between small, medium and large registries for participation.
As said, I'm happy to approve Katrina's wording as is, and confidently have the expectation that we would be looking into the whole background of travel expenses 'ab initio' between now and Puerto Rico, and taking account in particular, your concerns as expressed below.
I trust that's the appropriate way forward?
Nigel
On 01/04/16 10:20, Vika Mpisane wrote:
I would be more comfortable with an interim change to accommodate the Helsinki meeting. This will then allow us time to properly assess the feasibility of a more ³permanent² change in Guidelines. I would love to have the emphasis on rotation retained in the new guideline to avoid a rather remote scenario where councillors in a region may ³gang up² (I know this is a harsh word apologies) against a particular councillor their region. Take Africa for example: what if Souleymane and I decide to exclude Abibu from getting an allocation against his will?
Notwithstanding, I am willing to approve the change if the rest of the members feel this is too remote a possibility to worry about.
Regards,
Vika Mpisane | ZADNA | +27 11 314 0077 ext. 602
From: <owner-ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org>> on behalf of Young-eum Lee <yesunhoo@gmail.com <mailto:yesunhoo@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, 01 April 2016 at 00:34 To: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv <mailto:katrina@nic.lv>> Cc: "ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>" <ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Your attention needed: Travel funding (resolution included)
I support the revision.
- kind regards, - Young-eum.
Young-eum Lee Dept. of Media Arts & Sciences <http://mas.knou.ac.kr/>, Korea National Open University <http://www.knou.ac.kr/> Dept. of Media Arts and Visual Contents <http://macgrad.knou.ac.kr/>, KNOU Grad School <http://grad.knou.ac.kr/> ICANN <http://www.icann.org/> ccNSO <http://ccnso.icann.org/> Council member <http://ccnso.icann.org/council-members.htm>
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 5:33 AM, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv <mailto:katrina@nic.lv>> wrote:
Dear Councillors,
*Your decision is needed! *
____
I have been made aware that the Travel Funding Committee and the Secretariat are facing an issue with respect to travel funding of the Councillors elected by ccNSO members.
As you know the ccNSO has 12 travel slots per ICANN meeting. According to the Travel Funding Guideline (hereinafter Guideline, see http://ccnso.icann.org/about/travel-funding-12feb13-en.pdf please NOTE: this Guidelines hasn¹t been reviewed by the Guideline Review Committee yet) :
* 3 slots are for NomCom Council members. If not used they fall back to pool for other eligible candidates like presenters, WG members, etc.____ * 5 Slots for Councillors who are elected by members (one per region). According to the Guideline one Councillor per region is funded per ICANN meeting. If the eligible Councillor does not use the allocated travel slot it falls back to the pool for other eligible candidates. Further, the Councillors from each of the regions need to come up with a rotational scheme (per year): who is eligible for travel funding. The Secretariat will implement this scheme. Some of the ccTLD related Councillors have not used their slots (for various reasons). The unused slot then falls back to the pool for other eligible candidates (non-Councillors).____ * Basically, and according to the Guideline there are 4 slots for non-Councillors (other eligible persons). This number will increase if Councillors do not use their assigned slot.
The issue the Travel Funding Committee and staff are facing right now is that for some regions all ccTLD related Councillors indicate that one specific Councillor can use more than one slot per year. Whatever the arguments (and there are plenty!), the current Guideline clearly states another mechanism. This puts the Travel Funding Committee in a position to make that choice (between the Guideline and the decisions of the Councillors from a particular region). Therefore there is a need for the ccNSO Council to step in and make a decision. And, sorry, but we cannot wait for the call to discuss this issue because we need to submit the list of funded travellers ASAP.
So here¹s a suggestion to move forward:
1. The Guideline will be changed making clear that it is effectively up to the Councillors from a particular region how they want to assign the slots (independently of the number of fundigs received before). Only if none of the Councillors from the region expresses a need for the travel funding, it will be made available to the pool for others. 2. This change is effective immediately (after adoption by the ccNSO Council), hence applicable for the Helsinki meeting.
If agreed, here is a draft resolution to amend the Guideline.
*May I ask you to indicate whether you want further discussion, or object to it by 7 April 2016 17.00 UTC? Thank you very much!*
Draft Resolution
Background
According to the ccNSO Travel Funding Guideline as adopted by the ccNSO Council in February 2013:
/One Councillor from each of the 5 regions, on a rotating basis, will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be //funded once a year)./
____
/The Councillors representing the Region are to decide in which order the rotation shall/____
/take place. If no decision is made, the order is defined alphabetically./____
/If a Councillor does not want to use his allocated funding, the funds will be allocated to/____
/the ³Other Eligible Parties Category² or remain available for use during the remainder of/____
/the current fiscal year./____
/ /
It has been brought to the attention of the ccNSO Council that in some cases this creates issues for the Travel Funding Committee and for some ccNSO Councillors. To address the issue it is suggested that the Travel Funding Guideline will be amended to say:
/For Councillors: ____/
/One Councillor from each of the 5 regions will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be f//unded per meeting)./
//
/The Councillors representing the Region are to decide among themselves who will receive funding to attend a meeting. If no decision is made, or if none of the Councillors from a region wants to use the allocated funding, the funds for that region will be allocated to the ³Other Eligible Parties Category² or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year, to be determined by the Councillors from that Region./
/ /
/*Draft Decision*/
*The ccNSO Council decides to replace the current language of the section/Criteria for Eligibility,/the sentences starting with *
*/For Councillors/and ending with/This will be determined by the Committee/with://*
/* */
/*For Councillors: ____*/
/*One Councillor from each of the 5 regions will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be f*//*unded per meeting).*/
/**/
/*The Councillors representing the Region are to decide among themselves who will receive funding to attend a meeting. If no decision is made, or if none of the Councillors from a region wants to use the allocated funding, the funds for that region will be allocated to the ³Other Eligible Parties Category² or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year, to be determined by the Councillors from that Region.*/
/* */
*The Secretariat is requested to publish the amended Guideline as soon as possible after adoption. The amended Guideline will become effective immediately after publication.*
Kindest regards,
]{atrina
Vika, All, Yes, we will certainly get back to the guideline later the year. The Guidelines Review Committee will look into it, will propose changes and submit the revised Guidelines to the ccNSO Council for discussion.
Take Africa for example: what if Souleymane and I decide to exclude Abibu from getting an allocation against his will?
Now I am worried!!! Dear Abibu, if Souleymane and Vika EVER bully you, please let me know IMMEDIATELY! ;-) This is very important - each Councillor is eligible for at least one funded travel per year. The proposed changes allow a Councillor to be funded more than once per year if fellow Councillors agree. Kind regards, ]{atrina
:-) Thanks, Katrina. Regards, Vika Mpisane | ZADNA | +27 11 314 0077 ext. 602 From: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> Date: Friday, 01 April 2016 at 16:36 To: Vika Mpisane <vika@zadna.org.za>, <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: RE: [ccnso-council] Your attention needed: Travel funding (resolution included) Vika, All, Yes, we will certainly get back to the guideline later the year. The Guidelines Review Committee will look into it, will propose changes and submit the revised Guidelines to the ccNSO Council for discussion.
Take Africa for example: what if Souleymane and I decide to exclude Abibu from getting an allocation against his will?
Now I am worried!!! Dear Abibu, if Souleymane and Vika EVER bully you, please let me know IMMEDIATELY! ;-) This is very important each Councillor is eligible for at least one funded travel per year. The proposed changes allow a Councillor to be funded more than once per year if fellow Councillors agree. Kind regards, ]{atrina
I support the resolution. Hiro On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 22:33:15 +0200 Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
Dear Councillors,
Your decision is needed!
I have been made aware that the Travel Funding Committee and the Secretariat are facing an issue with respect to travel funding of the Councillors elected by ccNSO members.
As you know the ccNSO has 12 travel slots per ICANN meeting. According to the Travel Funding Guideline (hereinafter - Guideline, see http://ccnso.icann.org/about/travel-funding-12feb13-en.pdf - please NOTE: this Guidelines hasn1t been reviewed by the Guideline Review Committee yet) : * 3 slots are for NomCom Council members. If not used they fall back to pool for other eligible candidates like presenters, WG members, etc. * 5 Slots for Councillors who are elected by members (one per region). According to the Guideline one Councillor per region is funded per ICANN meeting. If the eligible Councillor does not use the allocated travel slot it falls back to the pool for other eligible candidates. Further, the Councillors from each of the regions need to come up with a rotational scheme (per year): who is eligible for travel funding. The Secretariat will implement this scheme. Some of the ccTLD related Councillors have not used their slots (for various reasons). The unused slot then falls back to the pool for other eligible candidates (non-Councillors). * Basically, and according to the Guideline there are 4 slots for non-Councillors (other eligible persons). This number will increase if Councillors do not use their assigned slot.
The issue the Travel Funding Committee and staff are facing right now is that for some regions all ccTLD related Councillors indicate that one specific Councillor can use more than one slot per year. Whatever the arguments (and there are plenty!), the current Guideline clearly states another mechanism. This puts the Travel Funding Committee in a position to make that choice (between the Guideline and the decisions of the Councillors from a particular region). Therefore there is a need for the ccNSO Council to step in and make a decision. And, sorry, but we cannot wait for the call to discuss this issue because we need to submit the list of funded travellers ASAP.
So here1s a suggestion to move forward: 1. The Guideline will be changed making clear that it is effectively up to the Councillors from a particular region how they want to assign the slots (independently of the number of fundigs received before). Only if none of the Councillors from the region expresses a need for the travel funding, it will be made available to the pool for others. 2. This change is effective immediately (after adoption by the ccNSO Council), hence applicable for the Helsinki meeting. If agreed, here is a draft resolution to amend the Guideline.
May I ask you to indicate whether you want further discussion, or object to it by 7 April 2016 17.00 UTC? Thank you very much!
Draft Resolution Background According to the ccNSO Travel Funding Guideline as adopted by the ccNSO Council in February 2013:
One Councillor from each of the 5 regions, on a rotating basis, will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be funded once a year).
The Councillors representing the Region are to decide in which order the rotation shall
take place. If no decision is made, the order is defined alphabetically.
If a Councillor does not want to use his allocated funding, the funds will be allocated to
the 3Other Eligible Parties Category2 or remain available for use during the remainder of
the current fiscal year.
It has been brought to the attention of the ccNSO Council that in some cases this creates issues for the Travel Funding Committee and for some ccNSO Councillors. To address the issue it is suggested that the Travel Funding Guideline will be amended to say:
For Councillors:
One Councillor from each of the 5 regions will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be funded per meeting).
The Councillors representing the Region are to decide among themselves who will receive funding to attend a meeting. If no decision is made, or if none of the Councillors from a region wants to use the allocated funding, the funds for that region will be allocated to the 3Other Eligible Parties Category2 or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year, to be determined by the Councillors from that Region.
Draft Decision The ccNSO Council decides to replace the current language of the section Criteria for Eligibility, the sentences starting with For Councillors and ending with This will be determined by the Committee with:
For Councillors:
One Councillor from each of the 5 regions will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be funded per meeting).
The Councillors representing the Region are to decide among themselves who will receive funding to attend a meeting. If no decision is made, or if none of the Councillors from a region wants to use the allocated funding, the funds for that region will be allocated to the 3Other Eligible Parties Category2 or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year, to be determined by the Councillors from that Region.
The Secretariat is requested to publish the amended Guideline as soon as possible after adoption. The amended Guideline will become effective immediately after publication.
Kindest regards,
]{atrina
Dear all, i support the decision Souleymane Best regard 2016-03-31 20:33 GMT+00:00 Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv>:
Dear Councillors,
*Your decision is needed! *
I have been made aware that the Travel Funding Committee and the Secretariat are facing an issue with respect to travel funding of the Councillors elected by ccNSO members.
As you know the ccNSO has 12 travel slots per ICANN meeting. According to the Travel Funding Guideline (hereinafter – Guideline, see http://ccnso.icann.org/about/travel-funding-12feb13-en.pdf – please NOTE: this Guidelines hasn’t been reviewed by the Guideline Review Committee yet) :
- 3 slots are for NomCom Council members. If not used they fall back to pool for other eligible candidates like presenters, WG members, etc. - 5 Slots for Councillors who are elected by members (one per region). According to the Guideline one Councillor per region is funded per ICANN meeting. If the eligible Councillor does not use the allocated travel slot it falls back to the pool for other eligible candidates. Further, the Councillors from each of the regions need to come up with a rotational scheme (per year): who is eligible for travel funding. The Secretariat will implement this scheme. Some of the ccTLD related Councillors have not used their slots (for various reasons). The unused slot then falls back to the pool for other eligible candidates (non-Councillors). - Basically, and according to the Guideline there are 4 slots for non-Councillors (other eligible persons). This number will increase if Councillors do not use their assigned slot.
The issue the Travel Funding Committee and staff are facing right now is that for some regions all ccTLD related Councillors indicate that one specific Councillor can use more than one slot per year. Whatever the arguments (and there are plenty!), the current Guideline clearly states another mechanism. This puts the Travel Funding Committee in a position to make that choice (between the Guideline and the decisions of the Councillors from a particular region). Therefore there is a need for the ccNSO Council to step in and make a decision. And, sorry, but we cannot wait for the call to discuss this issue because we need to submit the list of funded travellers ASAP.
So here’s a suggestion to move forward:
1. The Guideline will be changed making clear that it is effectively up to the Councillors from a particular region how they want to assign the slots (independently of the number of fundigs received before). Only if none of the Councillors from the region expresses a need for the travel funding, it will be made available to the pool for others. 2. This change is effective immediately (after adoption by the ccNSO Council), hence applicable for the Helsinki meeting.
If agreed, here is a draft resolution to amend the Guideline.
*May I ask you to indicate whether you want further discussion, or object to it by 7 April 2016 17.00 UTC? Thank you very much!*
Draft Resolution
Background
According to the ccNSO Travel Funding Guideline as adopted by the ccNSO Council in February 2013:
*One Councillor from each of the 5 regions, on a rotating basis, will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be **funded once a year).*
*The Councillors representing the Region are to decide in which order the rotation shall*
*take place. If no decision is made, the order is defined alphabetically.*
*If a Councillor does not want to use his allocated funding, the funds will be allocated to*
*the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of*
*the current fiscal year.*
It has been brought to the attention of the ccNSO Council that in some cases this creates issues for the Travel Funding Committee and for some ccNSO Councillors. To address the issue it is suggested that the Travel Funding Guideline will be amended to say:
*For Councillors: *
*One Councillor from each of the 5 regions will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be f**unded per meeting).*
*The Councillors representing the Region are to decide among themselves who will receive funding to attend a meeting. If no decision is made, or if none of the Councillors from a region wants to use the allocated funding, the funds for that region will be allocated to the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year, to be determined by the Councillors from that Region.*
*Draft Decision*
*The ccNSO Council decides to replace the current language of the section Criteria for Eligibility, the sentences starting with *
*For Councillors and ending with This will be determined by the Committee with: *
*For Councillors: *
*One Councillor from each of the 5 regions will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be f**unded per meeting).*
*The Councillors representing the Region are to decide among themselves who will receive funding to attend a meeting. If no decision is made, or if none of the Councillors from a region wants to use the allocated funding, the funds for that region will be allocated to the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year, to be determined by the Councillors from that Region.*
*The Secretariat is requested to publish the amended Guideline as soon as possible after adoption. The amended Guideline will become effective immediately after publication.*
Kindest regards,
]{atrina
I support this proposal. Best, /Stephen From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Katrina Sataki Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 4:33 PM To: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: [ccnso-council] Your attention needed: Travel funding (resolution included) Dear Councillors, Your decision is needed! I have been made aware that the Travel Funding Committee and the Secretariat are facing an issue with respect to travel funding of the Councillors elected by ccNSO members. As you know the ccNSO has 12 travel slots per ICANN meeting. According to the Travel Funding Guideline (hereinafter - Guideline, see http://ccnso.icann.org/about/travel-funding-12feb13-en.pdf - please NOTE: this Guidelines hasn't been reviewed by the Guideline Review Committee yet) : * 3 slots are for NomCom Council members. If not used they fall back to pool for other eligible candidates like presenters, WG members, etc. * 5 Slots for Councillors who are elected by members (one per region). According to the Guideline one Councillor per region is funded per ICANN meeting. If the eligible Councillor does not use the allocated travel slot it falls back to the pool for other eligible candidates. Further, the Councillors from each of the regions need to come up with a rotational scheme (per year): who is eligible for travel funding. The Secretariat will implement this scheme. Some of the ccTLD related Councillors have not used their slots (for various reasons). The unused slot then falls back to the pool for other eligible candidates (non-Councillors). * Basically, and according to the Guideline there are 4 slots for non-Councillors (other eligible persons). This number will increase if Councillors do not use their assigned slot. The issue the Travel Funding Committee and staff are facing right now is that for some regions all ccTLD related Councillors indicate that one specific Councillor can use more than one slot per year. Whatever the arguments (and there are plenty!), the current Guideline clearly states another mechanism. This puts the Travel Funding Committee in a position to make that choice (between the Guideline and the decisions of the Councillors from a particular region). Therefore there is a need for the ccNSO Council to step in and make a decision. And, sorry, but we cannot wait for the call to discuss this issue because we need to submit the list of funded travellers ASAP. So here's a suggestion to move forward: 1. The Guideline will be changed making clear that it is effectively up to the Councillors from a particular region how they want to assign the slots (independently of the number of fundigs received before). Only if none of the Councillors from the region expresses a need for the travel funding, it will be made available to the pool for others. 2. This change is effective immediately (after adoption by the ccNSO Council), hence applicable for the Helsinki meeting. If agreed, here is a draft resolution to amend the Guideline. May I ask you to indicate whether you want further discussion, or object to it by 7 April 2016 17.00 UTC? Thank you very much! Draft Resolution Background According to the ccNSO Travel Funding Guideline as adopted by the ccNSO Council in February 2013: One Councillor from each of the 5 regions, on a rotating basis, will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be funded once a year). The Councillors representing the Region are to decide in which order the rotation shall take place. If no decision is made, the order is defined alphabetically. If a Councillor does not want to use his allocated funding, the funds will be allocated to the "Other Eligible Parties Category" or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year. It has been brought to the attention of the ccNSO Council that in some cases this creates issues for the Travel Funding Committee and for some ccNSO Councillors. To address the issue it is suggested that the Travel Funding Guideline will be amended to say: For Councillors: One Councillor from each of the 5 regions will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be funded per meeting). The Councillors representing the Region are to decide among themselves who will receive funding to attend a meeting. If no decision is made, or if none of the Councillors from a region wants to use the allocated funding, the funds for that region will be allocated to the "Other Eligible Parties Category" or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year, to be determined by the Councillors from that Region. Draft Decision The ccNSO Council decides to replace the current language of the section Criteria for Eligibility, the sentences starting with For Councillors and ending with This will be determined by the Committee with: For Councillors: One Councillor from each of the 5 regions will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be funded per meeting). The Councillors representing the Region are to decide among themselves who will receive funding to attend a meeting. If no decision is made, or if none of the Councillors from a region wants to use the allocated funding, the funds for that region will be allocated to the "Other Eligible Parties Category" or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year, to be determined by the Councillors from that Region. The Secretariat is requested to publish the amended Guideline as soon as possible after adoption. The amended Guideline will become effective immediately after publication. Kindest regards, ]{atrina
likewise J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: "SDeerhake@nic.as<mailto:SDeerhake@nic.as>" <SDeerhake@nic.as<mailto:SDeerhake@nic.as>> Organization: AS Domain Registry Reply-To: "SDeerhake@nic.as<mailto:SDeerhake@nic.as>" <SDeerhake@nic.as<mailto:SDeerhake@nic.as>> Date: Friday, April 1, 2016 at 12:08 PM To: 'Katrina Sataki' <katrina@nic.lv<mailto:katrina@nic.lv>>, "'ccnso-council@icann. org'" <ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: [ccnso-council] RE: Your attention needed: Travel funding (resolution included) I support this proposal. Best, /Stephen From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org> [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Katrina Sataki Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 4:33 PM To: ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] Your attention needed: Travel funding (resolution included) Dear Councillors, Your decision is needed! I have been made aware that the Travel Funding Committee and the Secretariat are facing an issue with respect to travel funding of the Councillors elected by ccNSO members. As you know the ccNSO has 12 travel slots per ICANN meeting. According to the Travel Funding Guideline (hereinafter – Guideline, see http://ccnso.icann.org/about/travel-funding-12feb13-en.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ccnso.icann.org_about_travel-2Dfunding-2D12feb13-2Den.pdf&d=CwMFAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=04qdBZ-v6ZGRxf0dboyi7IO5Gf6FRgS8ZLV2VcBROy8&s=CMjE0fEAzpuoK3JPViCYIRHvQpAdJ_ESWnf-4dL6SRg&e=> – please NOTE: this Guidelines hasn’t been reviewed by the Guideline Review Committee yet) : * 3 slots are for NomCom Council members. If not used they fall back to pool for other eligible candidates like presenters, WG members, etc. * 5 Slots for Councillors who are elected by members (one per region). According to the Guideline one Councillor per region is funded per ICANN meeting. If the eligible Councillor does not use the allocated travel slot it falls back to the pool for other eligible candidates. Further, the Councillors from each of the regions need to come up with a rotational scheme (per year): who is eligible for travel funding. The Secretariat will implement this scheme. Some of the ccTLD related Councillors have not used their slots (for various reasons). The unused slot then falls back to the pool for other eligible candidates (non-Councillors). * Basically, and according to the Guideline there are 4 slots for non-Councillors (other eligible persons). This number will increase if Councillors do not use their assigned slot. The issue the Travel Funding Committee and staff are facing right now is that for some regions all ccTLD related Councillors indicate that one specific Councillor can use more than one slot per year. Whatever the arguments (and there are plenty!), the current Guideline clearly states another mechanism. This puts the Travel Funding Committee in a position to make that choice (between the Guideline and the decisions of the Councillors from a particular region). Therefore there is a need for the ccNSO Council to step in and make a decision. And, sorry, but we cannot wait for the call to discuss this issue because we need to submit the list of funded travellers ASAP. So here’s a suggestion to move forward: 1. The Guideline will be changed making clear that it is effectively up to the Councillors from a particular region how they want to assign the slots (independently of the number of fundigs received before). Only if none of the Councillors from the region expresses a need for the travel funding, it will be made available to the pool for others. 2. This change is effective immediately (after adoption by the ccNSO Council), hence applicable for the Helsinki meeting. If agreed, here is a draft resolution to amend the Guideline. May I ask you to indicate whether you want further discussion, or object to it by 7 April 2016 17.00 UTC? Thank you very much! Draft Resolution Background According to the ccNSO Travel Funding Guideline as adopted by the ccNSO Council in February 2013: One Councillor from each of the 5 regions, on a rotating basis, will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be funded once a year). The Councillors representing the Region are to decide in which order the rotation shall take place. If no decision is made, the order is defined alphabetically. If a Councillor does not want to use his allocated funding, the funds will be allocated to the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year. It has been brought to the attention of the ccNSO Council that in some cases this creates issues for the Travel Funding Committee and for some ccNSO Councillors. To address the issue it is suggested that the Travel Funding Guideline will be amended to say: For Councillors: One Councillor from each of the 5 regions will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be funded per meeting). The Councillors representing the Region are to decide among themselves who will receive funding to attend a meeting. If no decision is made, or if none of the Councillors from a region wants to use the allocated funding, the funds for that region will be allocated to the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year, to be determined by the Councillors from that Region. Draft Decision The ccNSO Council decides to replace the current language of the section Criteria for Eligibility, the sentences starting with For Councillors and ending with This will be determined by the Committee with: For Councillors: One Councillor from each of the 5 regions will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be funded per meeting). The Councillors representing the Region are to decide among themselves who will receive funding to attend a meeting. If no decision is made, or if none of the Councillors from a region wants to use the allocated funding, the funds for that region will be allocated to the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year, to be determined by the Councillors from that Region. The Secretariat is requested to publish the amended Guideline as soon as possible after adoption. The amended Guideline will become effective immediately after publication. Kindest regards, ]{atrina
I also support Cheers Debbie
On 2/04/2016, at 05:11, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:
likewise
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/>
From: "SDeerhake@nic.as <mailto:SDeerhake@nic.as>" <SDeerhake@nic.as <mailto:SDeerhake@nic.as>> Organization: AS Domain Registry Reply-To: "SDeerhake@nic.as <mailto:SDeerhake@nic.as>" <SDeerhake@nic.as <mailto:SDeerhake@nic.as>> Date: Friday, April 1, 2016 at 12:08 PM To: 'Katrina Sataki' <katrina@nic.lv <mailto:katrina@nic.lv>>, "'ccnso-council@icann. org'" <ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: [ccnso-council] RE: Your attention needed: Travel funding (resolution included)
I support this proposal.
Best, /Stephen
From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org> [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Katrina Sataki Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 4:33 PM To: ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] Your attention needed: Travel funding (resolution included)
Dear Councillors,
Your decision is needed!
I have been made aware that the Travel Funding Committee and the Secretariat are facing an issue with respect to travel funding of the Councillors elected by ccNSO members.
As you know the ccNSO has 12 travel slots per ICANN meeting. According to the Travel Funding Guideline (hereinafter – Guideline, see http://ccnso.icann.org/about/travel-funding-12feb13-en.pdf <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ccnso.icann.org_about_tr...> – please NOTE: this Guidelines hasn’t been reviewed by the Guideline Review Committee yet) : 3 slots are for NomCom Council members. If not used they fall back to pool for other eligible candidates like presenters, WG members, etc. 5 Slots for Councillors who are elected by members (one per region). According to the Guideline one Councillor per region is funded per ICANN meeting. If the eligible Councillor does not use the allocated travel slot it falls back to the pool for other eligible candidates. Further, the Councillors from each of the regions need to come up with a rotational scheme (per year): who is eligible for travel funding. The Secretariat will implement this scheme. Some of the ccTLD related Councillors have not used their slots (for various reasons). The unused slot then falls back to the pool for other eligible candidates (non-Councillors). Basically, and according to the Guideline there are 4 slots for non-Councillors (other eligible persons). This number will increase if Councillors do not use their assigned slot.
The issue the Travel Funding Committee and staff are facing right now is that for some regions all ccTLD related Councillors indicate that one specific Councillor can use more than one slot per year. Whatever the arguments (and there are plenty!), the current Guideline clearly states another mechanism. This puts the Travel Funding Committee in a position to make that choice (between the Guideline and the decisions of the Councillors from a particular region). Therefore there is a need for the ccNSO Council to step in and make a decision. And, sorry, but we cannot wait for the call to discuss this issue because we need to submit the list of funded travellers ASAP.
So here’s a suggestion to move forward: The Guideline will be changed making clear that it is effectively up to the Councillors from a particular region how they want to assign the slots (independently of the number of fundigs received before). Only if none of the Councillors from the region expresses a need for the travel funding, it will be made available to the pool for others. This change is effective immediately (after adoption by the ccNSO Council), hence applicable for the Helsinki meeting. If agreed, here is a draft resolution to amend the Guideline.
May I ask you to indicate whether you want further discussion, or object to it by 7 April 2016 17.00 UTC? Thank you very much!
Draft Resolution Background According to the ccNSO Travel Funding Guideline as adopted by the ccNSO Council in February 2013: One Councillor from each of the 5 regions, on a rotating basis, will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be funded once a year).
The Councillors representing the Region are to decide in which order the rotation shall take place. If no decision is made, the order is defined alphabetically. If a Councillor does not want to use his allocated funding, the funds will be allocated to the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year.
It has been brought to the attention of the ccNSO Council that in some cases this creates issues for the Travel Funding Committee and for some ccNSO Councillors. To address the issue it is suggested that the Travel Funding Guideline will be amended to say:
For Councillors: One Councillor from each of the 5 regions will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be funded per meeting).
The Councillors representing the Region are to decide among themselves who will receive funding to attend a meeting. If no decision is made, or if none of the Councillors from a region wants to use the allocated funding, the funds for that region will be allocated to the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year, to be determined by the Councillors from that Region.
Draft Decision The ccNSO Council decides to replace the current language of the section Criteria for Eligibility, the sentences starting with For Councillors and ending with This will be determined by the Committee with:
For Councillors: One Councillor from each of the 5 regions will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be funded per meeting).
The Councillors representing the Region are to decide among themselves who will receive funding to attend a meeting. If no decision is made, or if none of the Councillors from a region wants to use the allocated funding, the funds for that region will be allocated to the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year, to be determined by the Councillors from that Region.
The Secretariat is requested to publish the amended Guideline as soon as possible after adoption. The amended Guideline will become effective immediately after publication.
Kindest regards,
]{atrina
+1 Alejandra *Registro de Dominios .gt* -- Universidad del Valle de Guatemala. 18 Ave. 11-95. Z. 15. V.H. III. Edificio *J*. Oficina *204*. *Tels:* *+502.23688564* y *+502.23688565* * <http://www.gt/> <https://twitter.com/DominiosGT> ** <https://www.facebook.com/DominiosGT> <https://plus.google.com/u/0/107159401057178225886/posts> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/registro-de-dominios-gt>* On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Debbie Monahan <dnc@dnc.org.nz> wrote:
I also support
Cheers Debbie
On 2/04/2016, at 05:11, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:
likewise
*J. Beckwith Burr* *Neustar, Inc.* / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 *Office:* +1.202.533.2932 *Mobile:* +1.202.352.6367 */* *neustar.biz* <http://www.neustar.biz/>
From: "SDeerhake@nic.as" <SDeerhake@nic.as> Organization: AS Domain Registry Reply-To: "SDeerhake@nic.as" <SDeerhake@nic.as> Date: Friday, April 1, 2016 at 12:08 PM To: 'Katrina Sataki' <katrina@nic.lv>, "'ccnso-council@icann. org'" < ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] RE: Your attention needed: Travel funding (resolution included)
I support this proposal.
Best, /Stephen
*From:* owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [ mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org <owner-ccnso-council@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Katrina Sataki *Sent:* Thursday, March 31, 2016 4:33 PM *To:* ccnso-council@icann.org *Subject:* [ccnso-council] Your attention needed: Travel funding (resolution included)
Dear Councillors,
*Your decision is needed! *
I have been made aware that the Travel Funding Committee and the Secretariat are facing an issue with respect to travel funding of the Councillors elected by ccNSO members.
As you know the ccNSO has 12 travel slots per ICANN meeting. According to the Travel Funding Guideline (hereinafter – Guideline, see http://ccnso.icann.org/about/travel-funding-12feb13-en.pdf <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ccnso.icann.org_about_tr...> – please NOTE: this Guidelines hasn’t been reviewed by the Guideline Review Committee yet) :
- 3 slots are for NomCom Council members. If not used they fall back to pool for other eligible candidates like presenters, WG members, etc. - 5 Slots for Councillors who are elected by members (one per region). According to the Guideline one Councillor per region is funded per ICANN meeting. If the eligible Councillor does not use the allocated travel slot it falls back to the pool for other eligible candidates. Further, the Councillors from each of the regions need to come up with a rotational scheme (per year): who is eligible for travel funding. The Secretariat will implement this scheme. Some of the ccTLD related Councillors have not used their slots (for various reasons). The unused slot then falls back to the pool for other eligible candidates (non-Councillors). - Basically, and according to the Guideline there are 4 slots for non-Councillors (other eligible persons). This number will increase if Councillors do not use their assigned slot.
The issue the Travel Funding Committee and staff are facing right now is that for some regions all ccTLD related Councillors indicate that one specific Councillor can use more than one slot per year. Whatever the arguments (and there are plenty!), the current Guideline clearly states another mechanism. This puts the Travel Funding Committee in a position to make that choice (between the Guideline and the decisions of the Councillors from a particular region). Therefore there is a need for the ccNSO Council to step in and make a decision. And, sorry, but we cannot wait for the call to discuss this issue because we need to submit the list of funded travellers ASAP.
So here’s a suggestion to move forward:
1. The Guideline will be changed making clear that it is effectively up to the Councillors from a particular region how they want to assign the slots (independently of the number of fundigs received before). Only if none of the Councillors from the region expresses a need for the travel funding, it will be made available to the pool for others. 2. This change is effective immediately (after adoption by the ccNSO Council), hence applicable for the Helsinki meeting.
If agreed, here is a draft resolution to amend the Guideline.
*May I ask you to indicate whether you want further discussion, or object to it by 7 April 2016 17.00 UTC? Thank you very much!*
Draft Resolution Background According to the ccNSO Travel Funding Guideline as adopted by the ccNSO Council in February 2013: *One Councillor from each of the 5 regions, on a rotating basis, will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be funded once a year).*
*The Councillors representing the Region are to decide in which order the rotation shall* *take place. If no decision is made, the order is defined alphabetically.* *If a Councillor does not want to use his allocated funding, the funds will be allocated to* *the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of* *the current fiscal year.*
It has been brought to the attention of the ccNSO Council that in some cases this creates issues for the Travel Funding Committee and for some ccNSO Councillors. To address the issue it is suggested that the Travel Funding Guideline will be amended to say:
*For Councillors: * *One Councillor from each of the 5 regions will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be funded per meeting).*
*The Councillors representing the Region are to decide among themselves who will receive funding to attend a meeting. If no decision is made, or if none of the Councillors from a region wants to use the allocated funding, the funds for that region will be allocated to the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year, to be determined by the Councillors from that Region.*
*Draft Decision* *The ccNSO Council decides to replace the current language of the section Criteria for Eligibility, the sentences starting with * *For Councillors **and ending with This will be determined by the Committee with: *
*For Councillors: * *One Councillor from each of the 5 regions will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be funded per meeting).*
*The Councillors representing the Region are to decide among themselves who will receive funding to attend a meeting. If no decision is made, or if none of the Councillors from a region wants to use the allocated funding, the funds for that region will be allocated to the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year, to be determined by the Councillors from that Region.*
*The Secretariat is requested to publish the amended Guideline as soon as possible after adoption. The amended Guideline will become effective immediately after publication.*
Kindest regards,
]{atrina
I agree with the proposal. Regards Margarita Margarita Valdés Cortés, MBM Legal & Business Manager NIC Chile - University of Chile www.nic.cl +56229407734
El 01-04-2016, a las 17:05, Alejandra Reynoso <alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt> escribió:
+1
Alejandra
Registro de Dominios .gt -- Universidad del Valle de Guatemala. 18 Ave. 11-95. Z. 15. V.H. III. Edificio J. Oficina 204. Tels: +502.23688564 y +502.23688565
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Debbie Monahan <dnc@dnc.org.nz> wrote: I also support
Cheers Debbie
On 2/04/2016, at 05:11, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:
likewise
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz
From: "SDeerhake@nic.as" <SDeerhake@nic.as> Organization: AS Domain Registry Reply-To: "SDeerhake@nic.as" <SDeerhake@nic.as> Date: Friday, April 1, 2016 at 12:08 PM To: 'Katrina Sataki' <katrina@nic.lv>, "'ccnso-council@icann. org'" <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] RE: Your attention needed: Travel funding (resolution included)
I support this proposal.
Best, /Stephen
From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Katrina Sataki Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 4:33 PM To: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: [ccnso-council] Your attention needed: Travel funding (resolution included)
Dear Councillors,
Your decision is needed!
I have been made aware that the Travel Funding Committee and the Secretariat are facing an issue with respect to travel funding of the Councillors elected by ccNSO members.
As you know the ccNSO has 12 travel slots per ICANN meeting. According to the Travel Funding Guideline (hereinafter – Guideline, see http://ccnso.icann.org/about/travel-funding-12feb13-en.pdf – please NOTE: this Guidelines hasn’t been reviewed by the Guideline Review Committee yet) : 3 slots are for NomCom Council members. If not used they fall back to pool for other eligible candidates like presenters, WG members, etc. 5 Slots for Councillors who are elected by members (one per region). According to the Guideline one Councillor per region is funded per ICANN meeting. If the eligible Councillor does not use the allocated travel slot it falls back to the pool for other eligible candidates. Further, the Councillors from each of the regions need to come up with a rotational scheme (per year): who is eligible for travel funding. The Secretariat will implement this scheme. Some of the ccTLD related Councillors have not used their slots (for various reasons). The unused slot then falls back to the pool for other eligible candidates (non-Councillors). Basically, and according to the Guideline there are 4 slots for non-Councillors (other eligible persons). This number will increase if Councillors do not use their assigned slot.
The issue the Travel Funding Committee and staff are facing right now is that for some regions all ccTLD related Councillors indicate that one specific Councillor can use more than one slot per year. Whatever the arguments (and there are plenty!), the current Guideline clearly states another mechanism. This puts the Travel Funding Committee in a position to make that choice (between the Guideline and the decisions of the Councillors from a particular region). Therefore there is a need for the ccNSO Council to step in and make a decision. And, sorry, but we cannot wait for the call to discuss this issue because we need to submit the list of funded travellers ASAP.
So here’s a suggestion to move forward: The Guideline will be changed making clear that it is effectively up to the Councillors from a particular region how they want to assign the slots (independently of the number of fundigs received before). Only if none of the Councillors from the region expresses a need for the travel funding, it will be made available to the pool for others. This change is effective immediately (after adoption by the ccNSO Council), hence applicable for the Helsinki meeting. If agreed, here is a draft resolution to amend the Guideline.
May I ask you to indicate whether you want further discussion, or object to it by 7 April 2016 17.00 UTC? Thank you very much!
Draft Resolution Background According to the ccNSO Travel Funding Guideline as adopted by the ccNSO Council in February 2013: One Councillor from each of the 5 regions, on a rotating basis, will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be funded once a year).
The Councillors representing the Region are to decide in which order the rotation shall take place. If no decision is made, the order is defined alphabetically. If a Councillor does not want to use his allocated funding, the funds will be allocated to the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year.
It has been brought to the attention of the ccNSO Council that in some cases this creates issues for the Travel Funding Committee and for some ccNSO Councillors. To address the issue it is suggested that the Travel Funding Guideline will be amended to say:
For Councillors: One Councillor from each of the 5 regions will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be funded per meeting).
The Councillors representing the Region are to decide among themselves who will receive funding to attend a meeting. If no decision is made, or if none of the Councillors from a region wants to use the allocated funding, the funds for that region will be allocated to the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year, to be determined by the Councillors from that Region.
Draft Decision The ccNSO Council decides to replace the current language of the section Criteria for Eligibility, the sentences starting with For Councillors and ending with This will be determined by the Committee with:
For Councillors: One Councillor from each of the 5 regions will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be funded per meeting).
The Councillors representing the Region are to decide among themselves who will receive funding to attend a meeting. If no decision is made, or if none of the Councillors from a region wants to use the allocated funding, the funds for that region will be allocated to the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year, to be determined by the Councillors from that Region.
The Secretariat is requested to publish the amended Guideline as soon as possible after adoption. The amended Guideline will become effective immediately after publication.
Kindest regards,
]{atrina
Hi all, For transparency purposes, I agree with the proposal as a temporary measure. Best regards, Christelle Vaval
On Apr 3, 2016, at 12:35 PM, Margarita Valdes <mvaldes@nic.cl> wrote:
I agree with the proposal. Regards Margarita
Margarita Valdés Cortés, MBM Legal & Business Manager NIC Chile - University of Chile www.nic.cl +56229407734
El 01-04-2016, a las 17:05, Alejandra Reynoso <alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt> escribió:
+1
Alejandra
Registro de Dominios .gt -- Universidad del Valle de Guatemala. 18 Ave. 11-95. Z. 15. V.H. III. Edificio J. Oficina 204. Tels: +502.23688564 y +502.23688565
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Debbie Monahan <dnc@dnc.org.nz> wrote: I also support
Cheers Debbie
On 2/04/2016, at 05:11, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:
likewise
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz
From: "SDeerhake@nic.as" <SDeerhake@nic.as> Organization: AS Domain Registry Reply-To: "SDeerhake@nic.as" <SDeerhake@nic.as> Date: Friday, April 1, 2016 at 12:08 PM To: 'Katrina Sataki' <katrina@nic.lv>, "'ccnso-council@icann. org'" <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] RE: Your attention needed: Travel funding (resolution included)
I support this proposal.
Best, /Stephen
From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Katrina Sataki Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 4:33 PM To: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: [ccnso-council] Your attention needed: Travel funding (resolution included)
Dear Councillors,
Your decision is needed!
I have been made aware that the Travel Funding Committee and the Secretariat are facing an issue with respect to travel funding of the Councillors elected by ccNSO members.
As you know the ccNSO has 12 travel slots per ICANN meeting. According to the Travel Funding Guideline (hereinafter – Guideline, see http://ccnso.icann.org/about/travel-funding-12feb13-en.pdf – please NOTE: this Guidelines hasn’t been reviewed by the Guideline Review Committee yet) : 3 slots are for NomCom Council members. If not used they fall back to pool for other eligible candidates like presenters, WG members, etc. 5 Slots for Councillors who are elected by members (one per region). According to the Guideline one Councillor per region is funded per ICANN meeting. If the eligible Councillor does not use the allocated travel slot it falls back to the pool for other eligible candidates. Further, the Councillors from each of the regions need to come up with a rotational scheme (per year): who is eligible for travel funding. The Secretariat will implement this scheme. Some of the ccTLD related Councillors have not used their slots (for various reasons). The unused slot then falls back to the pool for other eligible candidates (non-Councillors). Basically, and according to the Guideline there are 4 slots for non-Councillors (other eligible persons). This number will increase if Councillors do not use their assigned slot.
The issue the Travel Funding Committee and staff are facing right now is that for some regions all ccTLD related Councillors indicate that one specific Councillor can use more than one slot per year. Whatever the arguments (and there are plenty!), the current Guideline clearly states another mechanism. This puts the Travel Funding Committee in a position to make that choice (between the Guideline and the decisions of the Councillors from a particular region). Therefore there is a need for the ccNSO Council to step in and make a decision. And, sorry, but we cannot wait for the call to discuss this issue because we need to submit the list of funded travellers ASAP.
So here’s a suggestion to move forward: The Guideline will be changed making clear that it is effectively up to the Councillors from a particular region how they want to assign the slots (independently of the number of fundigs received before). Only if none of the Councillors from the region expresses a need for the travel funding, it will be made available to the pool for others. This change is effective immediately (after adoption by the ccNSO Council), hence applicable for the Helsinki meeting. If agreed, here is a draft resolution to amend the Guideline.
May I ask you to indicate whether you want further discussion, or object to it by 7 April 2016 17.00 UTC? Thank you very much!
Draft Resolution Background According to the ccNSO Travel Funding Guideline as adopted by the ccNSO Council in February 2013: One Councillor from each of the 5 regions, on a rotating basis, will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be funded once a year).
The Councillors representing the Region are to decide in which order the rotation shall take place. If no decision is made, the order is defined alphabetically. If a Councillor does not want to use his allocated funding, the funds will be allocated to the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year.
It has been brought to the attention of the ccNSO Council that in some cases this creates issues for the Travel Funding Committee and for some ccNSO Councillors. To address the issue it is suggested that the Travel Funding Guideline will be amended to say:
For Councillors: One Councillor from each of the 5 regions will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be funded per meeting).
The Councillors representing the Region are to decide among themselves who will receive funding to attend a meeting. If no decision is made, or if none of the Councillors from a region wants to use the allocated funding, the funds for that region will be allocated to the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year, to be determined by the Councillors from that Region.
Draft Decision The ccNSO Council decides to replace the current language of the section Criteria for Eligibility, the sentences starting with For Councillors and ending with This will be determined by the Committee with:
For Councillors: One Councillor from each of the 5 regions will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be funded per meeting).
The Councillors representing the Region are to decide among themselves who will receive funding to attend a meeting. If no decision is made, or if none of the Councillors from a region wants to use the allocated funding, the funds for that region will be allocated to the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year, to be determined by the Councillors from that Region.
The Secretariat is requested to publish the amended Guideline as soon as possible after adoption. The amended Guideline will become effective immediately after publication.
Kindest regards,
]{atrina
Support +1 Ching 從我的 iPhone 傳送
Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> 於 2016年4月1日 上午4:33 寫道：
Dear Councillors,
Your decision is needed!
I have been made aware that the Travel Funding Committee and the Secretariat are facing an issue with respect to travel funding of the Councillors elected by ccNSO members.
As you know the ccNSO has 12 travel slots per ICANN meeting. According to the Travel Funding Guideline (hereinafter – Guideline, see http://ccnso.icann.org/about/travel-funding-12feb13-en.pdf – please NOTE: this Guidelines hasn’t been reviewed by the Guideline Review Committee yet) : 3 slots are for NomCom Council members. If not used they fall back to pool for other eligible candidates like presenters, WG members, etc. 5 Slots for Councillors who are elected by members (one per region). According to the Guideline one Councillor per region is funded per ICANN meeting. If the eligible Councillor does not use the allocated travel slot it falls back to the pool for other eligible candidates. Further, the Councillors from each of the regions need to come up with a rotational scheme (per year): who is eligible for travel funding. The Secretariat will implement this scheme. Some of the ccTLD related Councillors have not used their slots (for various reasons). The unused slot then falls back to the pool for other eligible candidates (non-Councillors). Basically, and according to the Guideline there are 4 slots for non-Councillors (other eligible persons). This number will increase if Councillors do not use their assigned slot.
The issue the Travel Funding Committee and staff are facing right now is that for some regions all ccTLD related Councillors indicate that one specific Councillor can use more than one slot per year. Whatever the arguments (and there are plenty!), the current Guideline clearly states another mechanism. This puts the Travel Funding Committee in a position to make that choice (between the Guideline and the decisions of the Councillors from a particular region). Therefore there is a need for the ccNSO Council to step in and make a decision. And, sorry, but we cannot wait for the call to discuss this issue because we need to submit the list of funded travellers ASAP.
So here’s a suggestion to move forward: The Guideline will be changed making clear that it is effectively up to the Councillors from a particular region how they want to assign the slots (independently of the number of fundigs received before). Only if none of the Councillors from the region expresses a need for the travel funding, it will be made available to the pool for others. This change is effective immediately (after adoption by the ccNSO Council), hence applicable for the Helsinki meeting. If agreed, here is a draft resolution to amend the Guideline.
May I ask you to indicate whether you want further discussion, or object to it by 7 April 2016 17.00 UTC? Thank you very much!
Draft Resolution Background According to the ccNSO Travel Funding Guideline as adopted by the ccNSO Council in February 2013: One Councillor from each of the 5 regions, on a rotating basis, will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be funded once a year).
The Councillors representing the Region are to decide in which order the rotation shall take place. If no decision is made, the order is defined alphabetically. If a Councillor does not want to use his allocated funding, the funds will be allocated to the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year.
It has been brought to the attention of the ccNSO Council that in some cases this creates issues for the Travel Funding Committee and for some ccNSO Councillors. To address the issue it is suggested that the Travel Funding Guideline will be amended to say:
For Councillors: One Councillor from each of the 5 regions will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be funded per meeting).
The Councillors representing the Region are to decide among themselves who will receive funding to attend a meeting. If no decision is made, or if none of the Councillors from a region wants to use the allocated funding, the funds for that region will be allocated to the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year, to be determined by the Councillors from that Region.
Draft Decision The ccNSO Council decides to replace the current language of the section Criteria for Eligibility, the sentences starting with For Councillors and ending with This will be determined by the Committee with:
For Councillors: One Councillor from each of the 5 regions will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be funded per meeting).
The Councillors representing the Region are to decide among themselves who will receive funding to attend a meeting. If no decision is made, or if none of the Councillors from a region wants to use the allocated funding, the funds for that region will be allocated to the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year, to be determined by the Councillors from that Region.
The Secretariat is requested to publish the amended Guideline as soon as possible after adoption. The amended Guideline will become effective immediately after publication.
Kindest regards,
]{atrina
Since my previous reply was sent only to Katrina, I would like to re-state my support for Katrina's proposal. - kind regards, - Young-eum Young-eum Lee Dept. of Media Arts & Sciences <http://mas.knou.ac.kr/>, Korea National Open University <http://www.knou.ac.kr/> Dept. of Media Arts and Visual Contents <http://macgrad.knou.ac.kr/>, KNOU Grad School <http://grad.knou.ac.kr/> ICANN <http://www.icann.org/> ccNSO <http://ccnso.icann.org/> Council member <http://ccnso.icann.org/council-members.htm> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 5:33 AM, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
Dear Councillors,
*Your decision is needed! *
I have been made aware that the Travel Funding Committee and the Secretariat are facing an issue with respect to travel funding of the Councillors elected by ccNSO members.
As you know the ccNSO has 12 travel slots per ICANN meeting. According to the Travel Funding Guideline (hereinafter – Guideline, see http://ccnso.icann.org/about/travel-funding-12feb13-en.pdf – please NOTE: this Guidelines hasn’t been reviewed by the Guideline Review Committee yet) :
- 3 slots are for NomCom Council members. If not used they fall back to pool for other eligible candidates like presenters, WG members, etc. - 5 Slots for Councillors who are elected by members (one per region). According to the Guideline one Councillor per region is funded per ICANN meeting. If the eligible Councillor does not use the allocated travel slot it falls back to the pool for other eligible candidates. Further, the Councillors from each of the regions need to come up with a rotational scheme (per year): who is eligible for travel funding. The Secretariat will implement this scheme. Some of the ccTLD related Councillors have not used their slots (for various reasons). The unused slot then falls back to the pool for other eligible candidates (non-Councillors). - Basically, and according to the Guideline there are 4 slots for non-Councillors (other eligible persons). This number will increase if Councillors do not use their assigned slot.
The issue the Travel Funding Committee and staff are facing right now is that for some regions all ccTLD related Councillors indicate that one specific Councillor can use more than one slot per year. Whatever the arguments (and there are plenty!), the current Guideline clearly states another mechanism. This puts the Travel Funding Committee in a position to make that choice (between the Guideline and the decisions of the Councillors from a particular region). Therefore there is a need for the ccNSO Council to step in and make a decision. And, sorry, but we cannot wait for the call to discuss this issue because we need to submit the list of funded travellers ASAP.
So here’s a suggestion to move forward:
1. The Guideline will be changed making clear that it is effectively up to the Councillors from a particular region how they want to assign the slots (independently of the number of fundigs received before). Only if none of the Councillors from the region expresses a need for the travel funding, it will be made available to the pool for others. 2. This change is effective immediately (after adoption by the ccNSO Council), hence applicable for the Helsinki meeting.
If agreed, here is a draft resolution to amend the Guideline.
*May I ask you to indicate whether you want further discussion, or object to it by 7 April 2016 17.00 UTC? Thank you very much!*
Draft Resolution
Background
According to the ccNSO Travel Funding Guideline as adopted by the ccNSO Council in February 2013:
*One Councillor from each of the 5 regions, on a rotating basis, will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be **funded once a year).*
*The Councillors representing the Region are to decide in which order the rotation shall*
*take place. If no decision is made, the order is defined alphabetically.*
*If a Councillor does not want to use his allocated funding, the funds will be allocated to*
*the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of*
*the current fiscal year.*
It has been brought to the attention of the ccNSO Council that in some cases this creates issues for the Travel Funding Committee and for some ccNSO Councillors. To address the issue it is suggested that the Travel Funding Guideline will be amended to say:
*For Councillors: *
*One Councillor from each of the 5 regions will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be f**unded per meeting).*
*The Councillors representing the Region are to decide among themselves who will receive funding to attend a meeting. If no decision is made, or if none of the Councillors from a region wants to use the allocated funding, the funds for that region will be allocated to the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year, to be determined by the Councillors from that Region.*
*Draft Decision*
*The ccNSO Council decides to replace the current language of the section Criteria for Eligibility, the sentences starting with *
*For Councillors and ending with This will be determined by the Committee with: *
*For Councillors: *
*One Councillor from each of the 5 regions will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be f**unded per meeting).*
*The Councillors representing the Region are to decide among themselves who will receive funding to attend a meeting. If no decision is made, or if none of the Councillors from a region wants to use the allocated funding, the funds for that region will be allocated to the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year, to be determined by the Councillors from that Region.*
*The Secretariat is requested to publish the amended Guideline as soon as possible after adoption. The amended Guideline will become effective immediately after publication.*
Kindest regards,
]{atrina
I support the resolution as well. Thank you! On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
Dear Councillors,
*Your decision is needed! *
I have been made aware that the Travel Funding Committee and the Secretariat are facing an issue with respect to travel funding of the Councillors elected by ccNSO members.
As you know the ccNSO has 12 travel slots per ICANN meeting. According to the Travel Funding Guideline (hereinafter – Guideline, see http://ccnso.icann.org/about/travel-funding-12feb13-en.pdf – please NOTE: this Guidelines hasn’t been reviewed by the Guideline Review Committee yet) :
- 3 slots are for NomCom Council members. If not used they fall back to pool for other eligible candidates like presenters, WG members, etc. - 5 Slots for Councillors who are elected by members (one per region). According to the Guideline one Councillor per region is funded per ICANN meeting. If the eligible Councillor does not use the allocated travel slot it falls back to the pool for other eligible candidates. Further, the Councillors from each of the regions need to come up with a rotational scheme (per year): who is eligible for travel funding. The Secretariat will implement this scheme. Some of the ccTLD related Councillors have not used their slots (for various reasons). The unused slot then falls back to the pool for other eligible candidates (non-Councillors). - Basically, and according to the Guideline there are 4 slots for non-Councillors (other eligible persons). This number will increase if Councillors do not use their assigned slot.
The issue the Travel Funding Committee and staff are facing right now is that for some regions all ccTLD related Councillors indicate that one specific Councillor can use more than one slot per year. Whatever the arguments (and there are plenty!), the current Guideline clearly states another mechanism. This puts the Travel Funding Committee in a position to make that choice (between the Guideline and the decisions of the Councillors from a particular region). Therefore there is a need for the ccNSO Council to step in and make a decision. And, sorry, but we cannot wait for the call to discuss this issue because we need to submit the list of funded travellers ASAP.
So here’s a suggestion to move forward:
1. The Guideline will be changed making clear that it is effectively up to the Councillors from a particular region how they want to assign the slots (independently of the number of fundigs received before). Only if none of the Councillors from the region expresses a need for the travel funding, it will be made available to the pool for others. 2. This change is effective immediately (after adoption by the ccNSO Council), hence applicable for the Helsinki meeting.
If agreed, here is a draft resolution to amend the Guideline.
*May I ask you to indicate whether you want further discussion, or object to it by 7 April 2016 17.00 UTC? Thank you very much!*
Draft Resolution
Background
According to the ccNSO Travel Funding Guideline as adopted by the ccNSO Council in February 2013:
*One Councillor from each of the 5 regions, on a rotating basis, will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be **funded once a year).*
*The Councillors representing the Region are to decide in which order the rotation shall*
*take place. If no decision is made, the order is defined alphabetically.*
*If a Councillor does not want to use his allocated funding, the funds will be allocated to*
*the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of*
*the current fiscal year.*
It has been brought to the attention of the ccNSO Council that in some cases this creates issues for the Travel Funding Committee and for some ccNSO Councillors. To address the issue it is suggested that the Travel Funding Guideline will be amended to say:
*For Councillors: *
*One Councillor from each of the 5 regions will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be f**unded per meeting).*
*The Councillors representing the Region are to decide among themselves who will receive funding to attend a meeting. If no decision is made, or if none of the Councillors from a region wants to use the allocated funding, the funds for that region will be allocated to the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year, to be determined by the Councillors from that Region.*
*Draft Decision*
*The ccNSO Council decides to replace the current language of the section Criteria for Eligibility, the sentences starting with *
*For Councillors and ending with This will be determined by the Committee with: *
*For Councillors: *
*One Councillor from each of the 5 regions will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be f**unded per meeting).*
*The Councillors representing the Region are to decide among themselves who will receive funding to attend a meeting. If no decision is made, or if none of the Councillors from a region wants to use the allocated funding, the funds for that region will be allocated to the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year, to be determined by the Councillors from that Region.*
*The Secretariat is requested to publish the amended Guideline as soon as possible after adoption. The amended Guideline will become effective immediately after publication.*
Kindest regards,
]{atrina
Dear Katrina, I agree with the resolution. Byron From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Katrina Sataki Sent: March-31-16 4:33 PM To: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: [ccnso-council] Your attention needed: Travel funding (resolution included) Dear Councillors, Your decision is needed! I have been made aware that the Travel Funding Committee and the Secretariat are facing an issue with respect to travel funding of the Councillors elected by ccNSO members. As you know the ccNSO has 12 travel slots per ICANN meeting. According to the Travel Funding Guideline (hereinafter - Guideline, see http://ccnso.icann.org/about/travel-funding-12feb13-en.pdf - please NOTE: this Guidelines hasn't been reviewed by the Guideline Review Committee yet) : * 3 slots are for NomCom Council members. If not used they fall back to pool for other eligible candidates like presenters, WG members, etc. * 5 Slots for Councillors who are elected by members (one per region). According to the Guideline one Councillor per region is funded per ICANN meeting. If the eligible Councillor does not use the allocated travel slot it falls back to the pool for other eligible candidates. Further, the Councillors from each of the regions need to come up with a rotational scheme (per year): who is eligible for travel funding. The Secretariat will implement this scheme. Some of the ccTLD related Councillors have not used their slots (for various reasons). The unused slot then falls back to the pool for other eligible candidates (non-Councillors). * Basically, and according to the Guideline there are 4 slots for non-Councillors (other eligible persons). This number will increase if Councillors do not use their assigned slot. The issue the Travel Funding Committee and staff are facing right now is that for some regions all ccTLD related Councillors indicate that one specific Councillor can use more than one slot per year. Whatever the arguments (and there are plenty!), the current Guideline clearly states another mechanism. This puts the Travel Funding Committee in a position to make that choice (between the Guideline and the decisions of the Councillors from a particular region). Therefore there is a need for the ccNSO Council to step in and make a decision. And, sorry, but we cannot wait for the call to discuss this issue because we need to submit the list of funded travellers ASAP. So here's a suggestion to move forward: 1. The Guideline will be changed making clear that it is effectively up to the Councillors from a particular region how they want to assign the slots (independently of the number of fundigs received before). Only if none of the Councillors from the region expresses a need for the travel funding, it will be made available to the pool for others. 2. This change is effective immediately (after adoption by the ccNSO Council), hence applicable for the Helsinki meeting. If agreed, here is a draft resolution to amend the Guideline. May I ask you to indicate whether you want further discussion, or object to it by 7 April 2016 17.00 UTC? Thank you very much! Draft Resolution Background According to the ccNSO Travel Funding Guideline as adopted by the ccNSO Council in February 2013: One Councillor from each of the 5 regions, on a rotating basis, will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be funded once a year). The Councillors representing the Region are to decide in which order the rotation shall take place. If no decision is made, the order is defined alphabetically. If a Councillor does not want to use his allocated funding, the funds will be allocated to the "Other Eligible Parties Category" or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year. It has been brought to the attention of the ccNSO Council that in some cases this creates issues for the Travel Funding Committee and for some ccNSO Councillors. To address the issue it is suggested that the Travel Funding Guideline will be amended to say: For Councillors: One Councillor from each of the 5 regions will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be funded per meeting). The Councillors representing the Region are to decide among themselves who will receive funding to attend a meeting. If no decision is made, or if none of the Councillors from a region wants to use the allocated funding, the funds for that region will be allocated to the "Other Eligible Parties Category" or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year, to be determined by the Councillors from that Region. Draft Decision The ccNSO Council decides to replace the current language of the section Criteria for Eligibility, the sentences starting with For Councillors and ending with This will be determined by the Committee with: For Councillors: One Councillor from each of the 5 regions will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be funded per meeting). The Councillors representing the Region are to decide among themselves who will receive funding to attend a meeting. If no decision is made, or if none of the Councillors from a region wants to use the allocated funding, the funds for that region will be allocated to the "Other Eligible Parties Category" or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year, to be determined by the Councillors from that Region. The Secretariat is requested to publish the amended Guideline as soon as possible after adoption. The amended Guideline will become effective immediately after publication. Kindest regards, ]{atrina
Me too. +1 demi On 04-04-2016 16:00, Byron Holland wrote:
Dear Katrina,
I agree with the resolution.
Byron
*From:*owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Katrina Sataki *Sent:* March-31-16 4:33 PM *To:* ccnso-council@icann.org *Subject:* [ccnso-council] Your attention needed: Travel funding (resolution included)
Dear Councillors,
*Your decision is needed! *
I have been made aware that the Travel Funding Committee and the Secretariat are facing an issue with respect to travel funding of the Councillors elected by ccNSO members.
As you know the ccNSO has 12 travel slots per ICANN meeting. According to the Travel Funding Guideline (hereinafter – Guideline, see http://ccnso.icann.org/about/travel-funding-12feb13-en.pdf – please NOTE: this Guidelines hasn’t been reviewed by the Guideline Review Committee yet) :
* 3 slots are for NomCom Council members. If not used they fall back to pool for other eligible candidates like presenters, WG members, etc. * 5 Slots for Councillors who are elected by members (one per region). According to the Guideline one Councillor per region is funded per ICANN meeting. If the eligible Councillor does not use the allocated travel slot it falls back to the pool for other eligible candidates. Further, the Councillors from each of the regions need to come up with a rotational scheme (per year): who is eligible for travel funding. The Secretariat will implement this scheme. Some of the ccTLD related Councillors have not used their slots (for various reasons). The unused slot then falls back to the pool for other eligible candidates (non-Councillors). * Basically, and according to the Guideline there are 4 slots for non-Councillors (other eligible persons). This number will increase if Councillors do not use their assigned slot.
The issue the Travel Funding Committee and staff are facing right now is that for some regions all ccTLD related Councillors indicate that one specific Councillor can use more than one slot per year. Whatever the arguments (and there are plenty!), the current Guideline clearly states another mechanism. This puts the Travel Funding Committee in a position to make that choice (between the Guideline and the decisions of the Councillors from a particular region). Therefore there is a need for the ccNSO Council to step in and make a decision. And, sorry, but we cannot wait for the call to discuss this issue because we need to submit the list of funded travellers ASAP.
So here’s a suggestion to move forward:
1. The Guideline will be changed making clear that it is effectively up to the Councillors from a particular region how they want to assign the slots (independently of the number of fundigs received before). Only if none of the Councillors from the region expresses a need for the travel funding, it will be made available to the pool for others. 2. This change is effective immediately (after adoption by the ccNSO Council), hence applicable for the Helsinki meeting.
If agreed, here is a draft resolution to amend the Guideline.
*May I ask you to indicate whether you want further discussion, or object to it by 7 April 2016 17.00 UTC? Thank you very much!*
Draft Resolution
Background
According to the ccNSO Travel Funding Guideline as adopted by the ccNSO Council in February 2013:
/One Councillor from each of the 5 regions, on a rotating basis, will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be funded once a year)./
/The Councillors representing the Region are to decide in which order the rotation shall/
/take place. If no decision is made, the order is defined alphabetically./
/If a Councillor does not want to use his allocated funding, the funds will be allocated to/
/the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of/
/the current fiscal year./
It has been brought to the attention of the ccNSO Council that in some cases this creates issues for the Travel Funding Committee and for some ccNSO Councillors. To address the issue it is suggested that the Travel Funding Guideline will be amended to say:
/For Councillors: /
/One Councillor from each of the 5 regions will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be funded per meeting)./
//
/The Councillors representing the Region are to decide among themselves who will receive funding to attend a meeting. If no decision is made, or if none of the Councillors from a region wants to use the allocated funding, the funds for that region will be allocated to the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year, to be determined by the Councillors from that Region./
*/Draft Decision/*
*The ccNSO Council decides to replace the current language of the section///Criteria for Eligibility,/the sentences starting with *
*/For Councillors/**and ending with///This will be determined by the Committee/with://*
*/For Councillors: /*
*/One Councillor from each of the 5 regions will receive travel funding for an ICANN meeting (i.e. a Councillor from each region will be funded per meeting)./*
*//*
*/The Councillors representing the Region are to decide among themselves who will receive funding to attend a meeting. If no decision is made, or if none of the Councillors from a region wants to use the allocated funding, the funds for that region will be allocated to the “Other Eligible Parties Category” or remain available for use during the remainder of the current fiscal year, to be determined by the Councillors from that Region./*
*The Secretariat is requested to publish the amended Guideline as soon as possible after adoption. The amended Guideline will become effective immediately after publication.*
Kindest regards,
]{atrina
participants (17)
-
Alejandra Reynoso -
Brandma CEO -
Burr, Becky -
Byron Holland -
Celia Lerman Friedman -
Christelle Vaval -
Debbie Monahan -
Demi Getschko -
HiroHOTTA -
Katrina Sataki -
Margarita Valdes -
Nigel Roberts -
Peter Vergote -
Souleymane Oumtanaga -
Stephen Deerhake -
Vika Mpisane -
Young-eum Lee