RE: [council] Comments in relation with GNSO travel funding and policy
Philip, I didn't take Chuck's comments to mean constituencies were not legitimate, or shouldn't have equitable treatment. And that certainly isn't the DT's intent. What we were trying to get to is that the amount of funding should be based on the number of councilors. So under the bicameral model, if a stakeholder group has six councilors they get enough travel funding for six participants. How those funds are divided up within the stakeholder group should be left to them (it all goes for the councilors, evenly distributed to the constituencies, etc.). Is that acceptable in your view? Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Comments in relation with GNSO travel funding and policy From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be> Date: Fri, March 27, 2009 10:12 am To: "'GNSO Council'" <council@gnso.icann.org> The BC profoundly objects to the proposed change of "constituencies" to "stakeholder groups" suggested by the RyC. Any new constituency must be approved by the Board. It is therefore legitimate. It therefore deserves equitable treatment. Philip
Thanks Tim. Your characterized my intent well. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 11:43 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Comments in relation with GNSO travel funding and policy
Philip,
I didn't take Chuck's comments to mean constituencies were not legitimate, or shouldn't have equitable treatment. And that certainly isn't the DT's intent.
What we were trying to get to is that the amount of funding should be based on the number of councilors. So under the bicameral model, if a stakeholder group has six councilors they get enough travel funding for six participants. How those funds are divided up within the stakeholder group should be left to them (it all goes for the councilors, evenly distributed to the constituencies, etc.).
Is that acceptable in your view?
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Comments in relation with GNSO travel funding and policy From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be> Date: Fri, March 27, 2009 10:12 am To: "'GNSO Council'" <council@gnso.icann.org>
The BC profoundly objects to the proposed change of "constituencies" to "stakeholder groups" suggested by the RyC.
Any new constituency must be approved by the Board. It is therefore legitimate. It therefore deserves equitable treatment.
Philip
Tim, it would be in yesterday's Council but in tomorrow's Council with working groups representing all constituencies it does not work. Personally I'd be happy with yesterday's Council. Alas the new woprld dictates new obligations. Philip ------------------ Tim wrote: Philip, I didn't take Chuck's comments to mean constituencies were not legitimate, or shouldn't have equitable treatment. And that certainly isn't the DT's intent. What we were trying to get to is that the amount of funding should be based on the number of councilors. So under the bicameral model, if a stakeholder group has six councillors they get enough travel funding for six participants. How those funds are divided up within the stakeholder group should be left to them (it all goes for the councilors, evenly distributed to the constituencies, etc.). Is that acceptable in your view? Tim
If the fact that we are moving to a working group model is Philip's concern, then maybe in doesn't make sense to focus on funding Councilors. In my edits I was simply trying to stay with that approach. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 12:15 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Comments in relation with GNSO travel funding and policy
Tim, it would be in yesterday's Council but in tomorrow's Council with working groups representing all constituencies it does not work.
Personally I'd be happy with yesterday's Council. Alas the new woprld dictates new obligations. Philip
------------------ Tim wrote: Philip,
I didn't take Chuck's comments to mean constituencies were not legitimate, or shouldn't have equitable treatment. And that certainly isn't the DT's intent.
What we were trying to get to is that the amount of funding should be based on the number of councilors. So under the bicameral model, if a stakeholder group has six councillors they get enough travel funding for six participants. How those funds are divided up within the stakeholder group should be left to them (it all goes for the councilors, evenly distributed to the constituencies, etc.).
Is that acceptable in your view?
Tim
participants (3)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
Philip Sheppard -
Tim Ruiz