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
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