Carlos and Council, On 1/9/09 4:48 AM, "Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza" <caffsouza@gmail.com> wrote: This is something that we have been discussing at NCUC. It would be nice to have some input on the eventual refusal of resolution 2 and, most what is more important, to let the council know the reasons why one system for allocating funds for travel expenses was chosen and not the one indicated in the GNSO motion. Such input would surely give us more information and grounds to decide on how to best react to the travel support procedure. Thank you, Carlos 2009/1/9 Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@aim.be> Denise, further to our Council discussion yesterday could you please elicit a response to resolution 2 of the Council motion on travel support passed at our December 18 meeting? This is Council's response re Mexico City and the deadlines you referenced. Many thanks. Philip ------------------- Whereas: Council welcomes the fact that ICANN have allocated some funds for GNSO travel. 1. Council regrets that the current proposal imposes administrative difficulty and may thus reduce the total budget available. 2. Council calls upon ICANN staff to nominate by 15 January 2009 a fixed sum for fiscal year 2009 that will be granted to each of the constituencies currently recognised under the ICANN by-laws of 29 May 2008. Such sum should exclude any budget to cover the costs of nom com delegates or GNSO chair travel. 3. Council requests Constituencies to publish the names of all those who receive travel support together with a list of the relevant meeting(s) for which the support was given and which were attended by the support recipient. The motion unanimously passed by voice vote -- Doug Brent Chief Operating Officer ICANN Voice: +1 310.301.3871 Mobile: +1 650.996.4447 Fax: +1 310.823.8649