First of all, I would like to restate my appreciation that Philip started the discussion about financial support to attend the GNSO Council meetings. I am also happy to know, from the different positive responses, that this is a problem that affects not only me, but also many other council members. We discussed it in a council meeting first - if I remember correctly - in Wellington, when information about ICANN funding for different other sectors was shared, but no action was taken. I was even surprised to learn now from Denise Michel's mail that "funding for Council members' travel to 2 intersessional meetings" is in the ICANN budget. Was this in response to a GNSO Council request? Or how was this achieved? I think this was done DURING 2006/2007 - so maybe it could be a model to help us out with wider funding also DURING the rest of 2007 for 2008 as a special case. I share the opinion that efforts should be made to fund all council member's participation (unless somebody says that outside cover has already been achieved). Otherwise there would probably be a very complicated process of assessing who, and for which meeting, might get support. Let me share my situation as a NCUC delegated council member as an example. The financial situation of our constituency saw ups and downs over time. Sometimes I had NCUC support (not full coverage of all flight and hotel costs), sometimes - like for the Los Angeles meeting, when I had already given up hope - I got "last minute" outside support. But because of the late date when I was able to make the bookings, the most economical bookings were already sold out (I mention this, because also the TIMING of funding assurance is important to save resources). To participate in the Lisbon meetings, I paid everything from my personal resources - I cannot do this often, as I am no longer in a salaried employment, but I am a "free" associate of the Cambodian NGO where I work. To financially facilitate my regular participation as a council member, without the almost regular anxiety whether or not I can finance to go to the next meeting, would be a great help not only for me, but I think that quite a number of colleagues in the council are in a similar situation. Norbert Klein Phnom Penh Cambodia = Robin Gross wrote:
I think the approach is for full support for all council members. I'm not sure that trying to divide councilors into classes of need and interest is useful in this situation.
The organization should simply pay for the work of the organization to be done, which means the travel costs of those expected to participate in policy meetings.
Robin
Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
While I have made a request to Denise regarding support for travel for remote locations by council members, understanding that most every location is remote to someone, I am not sure what direct action we can take. I have asked for budget consideration for 2008. Does anyone have any suggestions?
For clarification, what level of support we are asking for:
- Full support for all council members equivalent to nomcom appointee level os support - Full support for at least one member from each constituency - Support on an individual need basis. As I understand it, some participants may have already been able to get support on this basis.
One personal comment about nomcom appointee support. For the most part nomcom appointees are outsiders brought into ICANN and are generally not people who would have had professional interest in ICANN had they not been brought in by the Nomcom. Speaking personally, while a registrant and thus a stakeholder without constituency, ICANN was not on my list of professional activities and thus was not something i would have chosen to spent my own income on (i.e., I was content as an outside critic until asked to participate from the inside). I am assuming that those in constituencies and who become active in these constituencies have a professional or advocacy reason for participation. I am not arguing that this disqualifies anyone for support, but am trying to point out that there may be a difference in consideration between nomcom appointee expenses and constituency representative expenses. Also I do not expect that any nomcom appointee get their income from activities relating to ICANN. e.g, I don't. I also wonder whether any of the constituencies provide support for their chosen council members and whether this should be an issue as part of the restructuring effort.
a.
On 3 dec 2007, at 09.41, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
I also support another direct request, and echo Ute’s comments. I doubt that many Councilors outside of the NomComm (who have their expenses paid) and the Registries and Registrars (who have ICANN issues central to their businesses) would be able to make the trips to Delhi or Africa.
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ute Decker Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 3:09 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Funding for travel
I very much support that – ideally giving him also an idea of scale. I am among the many who will not be able to attend unless travel cost is covered and this is too important a meeting to miss out on.
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: 03 December 2007 10:59 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Funding for travel
Given that Delhi will soon be upon us, and that Council travel funding is in the ICANN budget, (even though we have repeated this request in our reform submission), should we consider a direct request to the ICANN CEO to authorise release of funds for Delhi ?
Philip
-- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit us regularly - you can find something new every day: http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com