All
As one of those who drafted the comments with Tatiana I am happy to stand over them, however I fully accept what Donna is saying.
So maybe the path forward is to do the following:
1 – a submission from the GNSO Council taking into consideration Donna’s suggestions, without getting into the quagmire of some of the programs. This would keep within the scope of the
GNSO Council’s views on this hopefully.
2 – Those of us who feel strongly that comments should be submitted regarding certain aspects of the travel support program do so separately ie. not as a submission by Council, but as
community members who wish to express their opinion.
Of course there is also the option of submissions via our respective stakeholder groups etc., though I’m not sure if that will really work for everyone.
Just a suggestion.
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
https://www.blacknight.com/
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,
Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina@gmail.com>
Date: Saturday 18 November 2017 at 13:04
To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg@isoc-cr.org>
Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] Community travel support consultation - draft of proposed response
Thanks a lot for your comments.
if we follow your logic it means that only those who are responsible for the fellowship and NextGen programs are able to comment on its effectiveness, although fellowship is supposed to be beneficial
for the entire community and should be assessed by the community.
I asked on the GNSO call when the questionnaire was presented why it missed questions about the fellowship and NextGen (as these programs have a large share in the ICANN travel budget) and whether
this would be added at the later stage. I was told that we can add our comments on this at the end of the questionnaire as general remarks.
I believe there are a lot of concerns about these programs. I see that we have no consensus as to whether we can comment on this, but I do think it's worth to raise these concerns and that we
as a GNSO council are in a position to do so. This is what "general remarks" section is for, in my opinion.
So I am apparently with the drafting team and with Erika and Julf here that instead of deleting the paragraph about these programs, we might even add more there, e.g. highlight that they are
not ICANN focused enough.
Warm regards,
Tanya
On 18 November 2017 at 13:32, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg@isoc-cr.org>
wrote: