Echoing all of the earlier comments, I too support this ABR — it is a pity it does not cover a delegate’s travel for the entirety of an ICANN meeting and just covers three days, as the people being supported through this program have a need, I would think, to be present for the entire duration of an ICANN meeting. Secondly, I think our current metrics are a little weak. They are fine for now, but we might want to think about beefing them up. Measuring the ROI of travel funding to a volunteer contributor is not a new concept; perhaps we could look at how the Ford Foundation or another organisation with a large travel budget does their evaluations and benchmark our more modest support against their criteria. I say this in part because I think we’d score really well. Finally, do we know who is on the “ABR Evaluation Team”? It might be worthwhile to see if we can coordinate a meeting with them (if that is possible) so we can understand how helpful/useful they found our metrics, or whether they have any feedback on what they would like to see us reporting back. Ayden
On 5 Sep 2018, at 06:34, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Council colleagues,
As noted on in our August GNSO Council meeting, we received in the FY18 budget process funding through the Additional Budget Request (ABR) mechanism to run a pilot of travel funding for a limited number of our PDP Chairs/leaders who otherwise would not have received funding to attend an ICANN public meeting.
We are required under the Additional Budget Request process to provide a report summarising how the funds were used, and how they contributed to our activities.
Donna, Rafik and I put the attached report to your attention; if you have any objections or proposed amendments, please could you post these to the Council list by next Monday, 10 September?
Many thanks and best wishes,
Heather, on behalf of Council leadership team <FY19 PDP Leadership Travel Support Pilot - ICANN62 2018 09 05.docx>