Dear All, It is good to join the Council and this discussion. First of all I think it is a shame that the Travel Support allocated is so little and so structured that it seems clear that greater thought ought have been given to the quantum and structure of the allocation or at least the guidance as to how it is to be allocated. In any case, now that we are confronted with the situation I would agree with Mike in that, for R & R constituencies this is their bread and butter and constitutes core business. Which is not the case for other constituencies for whom there is more of a challenge to participate. I may be new but for an Organisation the revenue of which comes from the R & R's to donate back money to the R & R's so that can attend its policy making meetings seems circular and to me it is not clear what rational purpose that would serve. It would also seem that another purpose of the GNSO having representative constituencies is to create a balance between the interests of suppliers (ie. R&R's) with the other constituencies (users). But if the funding is not made available to these balancing reps it may leave the other constituencies who cannot justify this as a core business from effectively participating and maintaining the balance in the GNSO. I think we should think about the actual purpose behind ICANN making the funding available. The funding it seems to me is for outreach and to get more representation of those for whom this does not represent a core business activity. As such the other constituencies (other than R & R) should get more allocation of the funds. Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally to some other use of this publication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 19 August 2008 21:43 To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 A strong argument can be made that Registry and Registrar Constituencies should not get any travel funding from ICANN for the meetings. The point of travel support is to ensure that a full slate of advisory volunteers appears for the meetings. The R and R reps normally would attend and participate anyway, as part of their normal business, which is not true for any of the other Constituencies. Also, the Registry and Registrar Constituencies do not have as much problem with outreach for members, since ICANN contracts are fundamental to their businesses. So they ought to be more able to use Constituency funding for travel than is true for the lesser funded "other" Constituencies. As a compromise for Cairo, perhaps those two Constituencies should receive half the funding of the other Constituencies, so that more is available for the other Constituencies and for WG chairs that are not from contracting parties. -Mike -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 8:35 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 I don't really think there are any errors, although I agree that the document could have included some additional information that may have clarified. In any case, my proposal for Cairo would be the same. Allow at least one spot per constituency and let them decide how to allocate it. The ACs take care of their own as instructed in the policy, and per the policy the liaisons are covered outside of the 10 additional spots. That would be six for the Constituencies, one for the GNSO Chair, and three for the Council as a whole to decide. But regardless of how we do it, basing it on supporting Councilors who simply say they would/could not otherwise attend is not appropriate. Let the Constituencies decide if they want to support one of their Councilors' travel, or someone else they feel is important to have there. I propose that the two or three spots left should not to go Councilors but instead be considered for the Chairs of the WGs first, and then to others the Chairs of the WGs might suggest would be good to have in Cairo to the benefit of their policy work. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Date: Tue, August 19, 2008 8:54 am To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@gnso.icann.org> Tim, I prefixed my comments saying that this is how I read it. As Avri has pointed out, our first priority is to handle Cairo and for that meeting the issues of Liaisons is moot. In any case, my rationale is not built solely on the numbers (I have already found and reported two errors there). The first column explicitly includes the number of liaisons. If (for an extreme example, the GNSO had 10 liaison, then that would have increased the number supported by 5. If all of that were to go to non-liaison folk, that would severely distort the intent (more than the possible rounding error of dividing an odd number does now). In any case, I expect that staff will clarify. Alan At 19/08/2008 09:08 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
Alan,
Please review the policy again. The Additional Support column of the
chart says "Half of Remaining Council Size and Chair." Half of the
remaining Council (less liaisons and NomCom) is 9, plus the Chair makes
10. That seems to add up right to me.
The liaisons and NomCom are covered elsewhere in the policy. What the
Council has to come up with is a documented, transparent policy around
allocating the additional 10. Since support for the Chair seems to be an
automatic, that leaves 9 spots to deal with. But note the policy is
*very* clear that those spots do not have to go to Councilors (see the
sixth bullet under section 2.1 of the policy).
So I think it is perfectly appropriate to allow the Constituencies to
each have at least one spot to allocate as best fits the needs of its
members and how the use of the funds would allow it to best contribute
to the policy process. That would leave three spots for the Council as a
whole to allocate.
However, I would personnaly support giving two spots to the NCUC and
there appears to be some support for that within the RrC (ultimately,
if/when there is a vote on any allocation process I will vote the voice
of the RrC and not my own). I also suggest that any Chairs of WGs that
are active at the time be given preference for the remaining two or
three spots.
Tim
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for
FY09
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>
Date: Mon, August 18, 2008 1:15 pm
To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@gnso.icann.org>
All of which follows is my understanding only. Alan
At 18/08/2008 03:22 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:
Well its good to see the maths has improved.
In terms of allocation we very much need to decide who.
I would suggest given the limited nature of this funding that it
applies to only elected
Council members.
This thus excludes nom com (who are funded by another budget),
NomCom members are explicitly fully funded according to the new
Revised Travel Support Procedure (first sentence of 2.0 and 7th
bullet of 2.1 - the number of people funded was explicitly increase
above 50% to cover them). The NomCom appointee travel used to be in
the NomCom budget, but apparently is being moved here (or at least
the budget is presented as if it has).
and excludes liaisons who
should be funded by their own base organisation's budget.
The calculation of number of people eligible for funding was
augmented by the number of Liaisons (23 for the GNSO which only has
21 full Councillors), so Liaisons should be eligible for funding
under whatever rule is decided upon. But that implies the money
cannot just be divided among constituencies and NomCom appointees. In
my case, my current ALAC term is up at the end of the Cairo meeting.
Since I am a full ALAC member, I need no additional funding from the
GNSO budget for that meeting, so that money (I would guess) goes into
the general GNSO pool.
After Cairo, but before July 2010, if I am replaced as Liaison by an
ALAC member, there would presumably still be no need for GNSO budget.
If I am replaced by someone not on the ALAC, that person would be
eligible for GNSO funding (perhaps with some back-room haggling
between the ALAC and GNSO).
If the Board follows through on its plan to cut 50% of ALAC funding
in July 2010, the ALAC Liaison would presumably be eligible for at
least partial funding, regardless of his/her committee status (unless
that person was a NomCom appointee to the ALAC in which case they
would remain fully funded).
Gee, its nice to have a simple, understandable, transparent policy.
Alan
This seems to be the basis for the budget thinking anyway.
Given that, then in terms of subsequent allocation that should be
done by constituency - the
body best placed to determine need.
There is of course an ethical dimension to the use of these
limited funds that those
parties who benefit from business opportunity as a result of ICANN
policy may wish to
consider before accepting funding.
Whether this ethical dimension applies equally to the BC - as a
function to our recently
growing membership of domainers - is to my mind an interesting question.
Philip