RE: [council] Results of Travel Policy meeting and motion for 4 September
We have not had sufficient opportunity to debate the concept of *need.* A single meeting and a few notes on the list only scratches surfice. I propose that such debate needs to take place before the allocation of any of the travel funds. For example, the two contracted party constituencies and the three commercial user constituencies claim to represent businesses or associations that rake in hundreds of millions to billions of dollars in revenue, profits, or membership fees. A half hour looking at the membership claimed by each and the financial/membership reports that are publicly available make that clear. This is not about whose employer is willing to fund who. This is about the ability of the constituencies to raise the necessary money to fund itself, including necessary travel. It is clear that at least the five constituencies mentioned above have that ability IF they truly represent the membership claimed and IF those constituents are truly in agreement on the importance of the GNSO's policy work. The travel funds do not roll over year to year, but they do meeting to meeting. Using funds unnecessarily now may only make fewer funds available later for those that may truly have a *need* however we ultimately decide to define it. Right now, any statement of need I have seen (including the registrars) is in reality just a statement of *want.* If there is no support for waiting, and I guess the special meeting made that clear, then I would like to propose we amend the motion to allow only one funded party per constituency. It is irrespondible and short sighted of us to do anything otherwise right now. Finally, I also think that any Councilor that is being proposed to receive funding in this motion or an amended motion should not be eligible to vote on that motion. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Results of Travel Policy meeting and motion for 4 September From: Avri Doria <avri@psg.com> Date: Thu, August 28, 2008 2:41 pm To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Hi, Following this morning's meeting, I have entered the text below on the motions page. In it I note that the meeting reached rough consensus on the proposal with one person dissenting. The dissenting view involved a request that the NCUC be notified that they should reconsider having only provided two names for the list given the fact that not all candidates on other constituency's lists were there because of need. Other participants in the meeting countered that given the requirement that a resolution needed to be submitted by end of day 4 September, we should not reopen the process of submitting names. The NCUC member attending the meeting agreed that the process should not be reopened. It should be noted that because the recommendation includes recognition of the fact that two council members are Nomcom members and that they would be traveling under the Nomcom budget with supplemental support from the DNSO/GNSO fund, the list only contains 12 instead of 13 names. Other issues that were brought up in the discussion: - That while it was reasonable to give each constituency one travel slot, all other travel slots should depend upon need. - the question of whether self declaration of need sufficient or should need be demonstrated in some manner? - that it should be possible to split one travel slot between two travelers. Other discussions involved the meaning of 'attending all SO session' and whether it was ok for one participant to miss the first day because of work obligations and travel time. - Some argued that the meeting requirements should be defined as only the week of formal meetings. - There was one participant who stated that the support was for full participation and that the money should only be used on people who could attend all sessions. - Several argued for flexibility The meeting reached rough consensus for a definition of 'all SO sessions' as including the weekend's sessions before the formal meeting began and for flexibility for those who could not arrive in time for Saturday's meetings. As stated in the motion, it was also made clear that this was a one time procedure and that for future meetings, further discussion would be required. It was also made clear that the current process of using the Travel Policy as defined was born out of necessity and did not represent GNSO council agreement with the Travel Policy as currently defined. As the motion evolved from the meeting which I chaired, I have listed myself as making the motion. It still needs to be seconded. As always, comments, corrections and clarifications are invited as are discussion on the motion itself. a. ---- Motion on Travel Arrangements for Cairo Motion: Avri Doria Second: Whereas: (note on the version on https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?04_sept_2008_motions # several of the whereas statement have hyperlinks to the appropriate documents and emails) * On 14 August 2008 ICANN Staff provided a Travel Policy that covered participants from the GNSO, and * On 21 August 2008, Doug Brent, ICANN COO, provided a FAQ which explained and amplified that travel policy, and * On 20 August 2008, Avri Doria, Chair GNSO Council, suggested a process for producing the list of travelers as required by the travel policy, which was clarified on 20 August 2008and on 21 August 2008, and * On 26-27 August 2008, all Constituencies submitted a recommendation containing 0-3 names of GNSO Constituency Participants as suggested, and * On 28 August 2008, a special meeting of the GNSO council was held, at which at least one council member from each constituency was in attendance,and * That the participants of this meeting reached a rough consensus, with one dissenting participant, on a proposed resolution on supporting travel to Cairo according to the ICANN Travel Policy for volunteers, and * In recognition of the general agreement that the methods used for this resolution are a one time solution for Cairo and that further discussion will need to be held on the Travel Policy itself as well as its implementation in the GNSO once the reorganization of the GNSO and its council is underway. Resolved: 1. The following list will be provided to ICANN Travel Staff as required by the policy on 4 September 2008: Name Constituency/NCA Reason Class of travel Bing, Jon NCA NCA Economy Cavalli, Olga NCA NCA Economy Doria, Avri NCA Council chair Business Gross, Robin NCUC Constituency 1st choice Economy Harris, Tony ISPC Constituency 1st choice Economy Hoover, Carolyn RyC Constituency 1st choice Economy Jamil,Zahid BC Financial Need Economy Klein, Norbert NCUC Financial Need Economy Rossette, Kristina IPC Financial Need Expenses Only Rodenbaugh, Mike BC Constituency 1st choice Economy Sheppard, Philip BC On Principle Economy Walton, Clarke RyC Constituency 1st choice Economy 2. That the level of participation that is defined in the Travel policy can be met by participation in all of the sessions to be scheduled by the GSNO, including the weekend sessions to be held on 1-2 November, and that exceptions can be made for travelers whose employment requirements make it difficult to arrive in time for meetings on 1 Novemeber 2008. 3. That the two GNSO council members, Ute Decker and Greg Ruth, who are also members of the Nominating Committee will receive transportation for the meeting and expenses starting Thrusday of ICANN week as members of the Nomcom and that the balance of their expenses will be covered, as the per-diem rate defined by the Travel Policy, from the DNSO/GNSO funds.
On 4 Sep 2008, at 14:51, Tim Ruiz wrote:
Finally, I also think that any Councilor that is being proposed to receive funding in this motion or an amended motion should not be eligible to vote on that motion.
Responding only on the procedural issue and on the substance of the travel policy, the question of how one makes decisions and how one gauges need if that is the chosen criterion. The GNSO council was instructed to make a decision. I do not now of any way for the council to make a decision without voting. And it would be equally strange to ask those who did not receive any funds, especially if we had been in the situation of having picked some over others. It seems to me that the council was voting on an entire solution which included some council member's travel allocation. No council member was actually voting on their inclusion on the list, but was rather voting on a package that contained names, possibly their own, as had been recommended by their constituency as well as other measures - similar to a parliament voting on a pay raise or allocations for office expenses. In this case, we found a way to fund everyone who had, though the process, been proposed by their constituency - no discrimination between people was necessary at the council level. It is obvious that we need to come up with some other method for the future, especially as we will be operating in the bi-cameral mode the next time around. In this case, given the press of time, I proposed a one time methodology so that we could respond to the situation as required. As there were no objections at the time the process was suggested, we followed through with it. a.
I mean to say: Responding only on the procedural issue and _NOT_ on the substance of the travel policy, the question of how one makes decisions and how one gauges need if that is the chosen criterion. Although that may have been obvious. a. On 4 Sep 2008, at 19:06, Avri Doria wrote:
On 4 Sep 2008, at 14:51, Tim Ruiz wrote:
Finally, I also think that any Councilor that is being proposed to receive funding in this motion or an amended motion should not be eligible to vote on that motion.
Responding only on the procedural issue and on the substance of the travel policy, the question of how one makes decisions and how one gauges need if that is the chosen criterion.
The GNSO council was instructed to make a decision. I do not now of any way for the council to make a decision without voting. And it would be equally strange to ask those who did not receive any funds, especially if we had been in the situation of having picked some over others. It seems to me that the council was voting on an entire solution which included some council member's travel allocation. No council member was actually voting on their inclusion on the list, but was rather voting on a package that contained names, possibly their own, as had been recommended by their constituency as well as other measures - similar to a parliament voting on a pay raise or allocations for office expenses. In this case, we found a way to fund everyone who had, though the process, been proposed by their constituency - no discrimination between people was necessary at the council level.
It is obvious that we need to come up with some other method for the future, especially as we will be operating in the bi-cameral mode the next time around. In this case, given the press of time, I proposed a one time methodology so that we could respond to the situation as required. As there were no objections at the time the process was suggested, we followed through with it.
a.
participants (2)
-
Avri Doria -
Tim Ruiz