Hi, Following this morning's meeting, I have entered the text below on the motions page. In it I note that the meeting reached rough consensus on the proposal with one person dissenting. The dissenting view involved a request that the NCUC be notified that they should reconsider having only provided two names for the list given the fact that not all candidates on other constituency's lists were there because of need. Other participants in the meeting countered that given the requirement that a resolution needed to be submitted by end of day 4 September, we should not reopen the process of submitting names. The NCUC member attending the meeting agreed that the process should not be reopened. It should be noted that because the recommendation includes recognition of the fact that two council members are Nomcom members and that they would be traveling under the Nomcom budget with supplemental support from the DNSO/GNSO fund, the list only contains 12 instead of 13 names. Other issues that were brought up in the discussion: - That while it was reasonable to give each constituency one travel slot, all other travel slots should depend upon need. - the question of whether self declaration of need sufficient or should need be demonstrated in some manner? - that it should be possible to split one travel slot between two travelers. Other discussions involved the meaning of 'attending all SO session' and whether it was ok for one participant to miss the first day because of work obligations and travel time. - Some argued that the meeting requirements should be defined as only the week of formal meetings. - There was one participant who stated that the support was for full participation and that the money should only be used on people who could attend all sessions. - Several argued for flexibility The meeting reached rough consensus for a definition of 'all SO sessions' as including the weekend's sessions before the formal meeting began and for flexibility for those who could not arrive in time for Saturday's meetings. As stated in the motion, it was also made clear that this was a one time procedure and that for future meetings, further discussion would be required. It was also made clear that the current process of using the Travel Policy as defined was born out of necessity and did not represent GNSO council agreement with the Travel Policy as currently defined. As the motion evolved from the meeting which I chaired, I have listed myself as making the motion. It still needs to be seconded. As always, comments, corrections and clarifications are invited as are discussion on the motion itself. a. ---- Motion on Travel Arrangements for Cairo Motion: Avri Doria Second: Whereas: (note on the version on https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?04_sept_2008_motions # several of the whereas statement have hyperlinks to the appropriate documents and emails) * On 14 August 2008 ICANN Staff provided a Travel Policy that covered participants from the GNSO, and * On 21 August 2008, Doug Brent, ICANN COO, provided a FAQ which explained and amplified that travel policy, and * On 20 August 2008, Avri Doria, Chair GNSO Council, suggested a process for producing the list of travelers as required by the travel policy, which was clarified on 20 August 2008and on 21 August 2008, and * On 26-27 August 2008, all Constituencies submitted a recommendation containing 0-3 names of GNSO Constituency Participants as suggested, and * On 28 August 2008, a special meeting of the GNSO council was held, at which at least one council member from each constituency was in attendance,and * That the participants of this meeting reached a rough consensus, with one dissenting participant, on a proposed resolution on supporting travel to Cairo according to the ICANN Travel Policy for volunteers, and * In recognition of the general agreement that the methods used for this resolution are a one time solution for Cairo and that further discussion will need to be held on the Travel Policy itself as well as its implementation in the GNSO once the reorganization of the GNSO and its council is underway. Resolved: 1. The following list will be provided to ICANN Travel Staff as required by the policy on 4 September 2008: Name Constituency/NCA Reason Class of travel Bing, Jon NCA NCA Economy Cavalli, Olga NCA NCA Economy Doria, Avri NCA Council chair Business Gross, Robin NCUC Constituency 1st choice Economy Harris, Tony ISPC Constituency 1st choice Economy Hoover, Carolyn RyC Constituency 1st choice Economy Jamil,Zahid BC Financial Need Economy Klein, Norbert NCUC Financial Need Economy Rossette, Kristina IPC Financial Need Expenses Only Rodenbaugh, Mike BC Constituency 1st choice Economy Sheppard, Philip BC On Principle Economy Walton, Clarke RyC Constituency 1st choice Economy 2. That the level of participation that is defined in the Travel policy can be met by participation in all of the sessions to be scheduled by the GSNO, including the weekend sessions to be held on 1-2 November, and that exceptions can be made for travelers whose employment requirements make it difficult to arrive in time for meetings on 1 Novemeber 2008. 3. That the two GNSO council members, Ute Decker and Greg Ruth, who are also members of the Nominating Committee will receive transportation for the meeting and expenses starting Thrusday of ICANN week as members of the Nomcom and that the balance of their expenses will be covered, as the per-diem rate defined by the Travel Policy, from the DNSO/GNSO funds.