Avri, I like that approach. In fact, during discussion with the RrC members is seems there is some general support for the idea of 1 spot for each constituency except that the NCUC would get 2. The other 3 would be for the Chairs of active WGs and/or allocated by the Council as a whole based on need. Also, no matter how the funds are allocated, it should be done transparently so the community at large can see into the process and the reasoning behind the use of the funds. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 From: Avri Doria <avri@psg.com> Date: Fri, August 15, 2008 7:05 am To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Hi, One other consideration that has been brought up in the past is whether the support needs to be extended to people not in the council. For example, as we start to ask more non council members to chair WGs, will we need to share some of the support with those we ask to chair a WG? If so, and we use a mostly constituency based model as opposed to a purely need based model, might we want to give 1 spot (or 1 equivalent if it goes that way) to each constituency with 2 (or 2 equivalents) held for WG chairs or constituencies with an extra need for an extra council member(s). a.