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]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_trvlconstit_ICANN-2BFace-2Dto-2BFace-2BMeeting-3Fpreview-3D_71603563_84224328_2018-2D02-2D01-2520-2D-2520GNSO-2520NCPH-2520-2D-2520LAX.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=9c-0dLNYC11X37P0I5jZ2WPx85tZsCORcg3nESYj0Zw&s=ge5ePckMnAcfOXaDWMS2eXH5jM4sqhEfMEO82SWvNqk&e=). 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