+1 ----------------- Arsène Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos)
On Jun 1, 2018, at 1:11 PM, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Ayden and all for your comments, questions and points here on the SPS budget approval. We have kept track of all the questions raised, and I suggest that we come back to this after ICANN62. I very much appreciate Marika's detailed replies which came in over my nighttime, as I know that she and her team are swamped right now in prepping for Panama and supporting our efforts on next steps. I suggest we come back to the points raised as soon as we have a bit more breathing space after Panama is behind us.
Best wishes,
Heather
On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 8:33 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> wrote: I agree, and I was not seriously suggesting that we move to a reimbursement model, though if it happened, I think it would soon become apparent that community members do incur costs as a result of participating in ICANN-organised meetings. I know that I lose money as a result of my ICANN participation, and I do not think I am alone here. I continue to find it offensive that the suggestion would even be put forward that this small per diem would be removed. This really highlights to me how little ICANN staff know about the sacrifices that community members make to participate at ICANN. I knew that other departments at ICANN did not understand, but until yesterday, I did think the policy team understood. So very telling.
Ayden
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On 1 June 2018 12:25 PM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> wrote:
Ayden
I’d oppose moving from per diem to reimbursement as it would increase the overall cost.
The budget has been allocated and we need to be smart about how we use it in order to maximise it.
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Date: Friday 1 June 2018 at 00:38 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] [Ext] Re: Strategic Planning Session 2019
Thank you, Marika; I would personally prefer that the travel report for the Council's Strategic Planning Session and the NCPH Intersessional be separated into two, with appropriate costings divided, so that we have a fuller understanding of the cost of each forum. They are, after all, different forums with different delegates (albeit some overlap).
As for the suggestion of removing the per diem, we could instead have a discussion around reimbursing actual costs incurred by delegates -- for those meals not covered during the day, for ground transport between the hotel and airport, for currency conversion fees, for dry cleaning, and for travel insurance. But this might be harder for ICANN to budget for, an administrative burden to process, and may even end up exceeding the cost of the per diem that is currently paid.
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On 1 June 2018 1:25 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Actual expenses incurred – I am not a 100% sure how the allocation for delegates that attended both meetings was done, but I can find out.
Best regards,
Marika
From: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Date: Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 17:23 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [council] Strategic Planning Session 2019
Thanks for the swift reply, Marika. Are these actual expenses incurred, or was this simply the budget allocation for FY18? And do the travel costs here encompass 100% of the airfare for delegates who also participated in the NCPH intersessional, or only 50% of that cost, for said delegates?
Best wishes, Ayden
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On 1 June 2018 1:15 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Ayden, the breakdown of expenses was roughly as follows:
55,000 USD travel and hotel costs
8,000 USD Per diem
3,500 USD food and drinks
2,000 USD miscellaneous expenses (e.g. materials for the meeting, drinks / snacks for the office reception, taxis)
Note that there was no air fare associated with staff attendance as that was covered as part of the policy team strategic planning session the week before. As that meeting is no longer planned in next year’s budget due to savings, those expenses may need to be added, assuming you expect staff support for the meeting.
As food, drinks and transport where provided for most of the meeting, one potential area for savings could be not providing per diems?
Best regards,
Marika
From: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Date: Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 16:56 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [council] Strategic Planning Session 2019
Can we get a breakdown on what the $75,000 was spent on please? Was that all spent on travel, or is there anything else bundled into this figure? With some more granularity we might be able to identify those areas where some efficiencies can be achieved. Thank you.
Ayden Férdeline
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On 1 June 2018 12:49 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Ayden, please note that the reduction that the Council is asked to make compared to this year’s SPS is 15,000 USD. As you may see from the approval language, for this year’s edition, 75,000 USD was approved versus 60,000 USD for next year’s SPS. This may mean that in addition to reducing the meeting by one day other savings may need to be found.
Best regards,
Marika
From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Date: Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 01:50 To: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Strategic Planning Session 2019
Thanks very much Heather, that sounds a sensible path forward.
The travel report outlining the cost of our Strategic Planning Session in January is here [community.icann.org]. As we can see, the cost was largely down to flights; comparatively, hotel expenses were very minimal (and the per diem for each traveller even smaller than I had realised). Given this, it really is a pity that $5,000 could not be found to keep our session at three days long.
I appreciate that most requests for community support were scaled back, but they were scaled back to meet an artificially small Additional Budgetary Request envelope (0.002% of the overall budget), an amount that was set and limited by ICANN staff (personnel costs are 59% of the overall budget). The community had developed these requests in a bottom-up manner based upon demonstrated need.
Best wishes,
Ayden
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On 31 May 2018 8:30 AM, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Council colleagues,
I write with some welcome good news, for the GNSO generally and next year's GNSO Council in particular.
I have just received notice that our Additional Budget Request for holding a Strategic Planning Session in 2019 has been approved. You may recall that the request built in flexibility as to a 2 or 3 day schedule, in view of the FY19 budget and the 2018 SPS schedule (taking into account that the day we had on Bylaws review was a one-off). From our request, I understand that ICANN org has recommended that the Board approve a full 2-day face-to-face meeting of the Council, to be held separately from an ICANN Public Meeting. I also understand that the ABR process was highly competitive, with 55 applications received, and that most requests were scaled back to some degree. I personally believe we've done well here to get the 2 full days, and I'm confident that the next Council leadership team and Council can make good use of this to continue the professionalisation and learning process.
We have too much on our collective plates right now to begin planning, but I would suggest that Rafik, Donna and I give some preliminary thought to the logistics as our term ends, to hand over to the 2018-19 Council when it is seated in Barcelona.
Best wishes,
Heather
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council