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
Hi, Just one clarification. As I am an NCA, I do not believe my support as chair needs to come out of the 10. a. On 19 Aug 2008, at 11:34, Tim Ruiz wrote:
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
As you all can imagine I support this proposal. Best, tom
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Tim Ruiz Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. August 2008 17:35 An: 'Council GNSO' Betreff: 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
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
Mike, With all due respect, please note my responses below. I submit them with the qualification up front that I do not plan to request any travel funding. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 12:43 PM 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.
CG: As pointed out below, it is not a very strong argument.
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.
CG: Registries and registrars just like other businesses come in all shapes and sizes. Some normally attend; some do not. Some can afford to attend; some cannot. Do we want to define a full slate as only those who can afford to attend? Just like registries and registrars, some businesses normally attend; some do not. Some businesses can afford to attend; some cannot.
Also, the Registry and Registrar Constituencies do not have as much problem with outreach for members, since ICANN contracts are fundamental to their businesses.
CG: For sure the registries have the smallest number of potential members but just like others we have active and inactive members. It should be noted that a signficantly larger potential member population can be an advantage. If the BC successfully recruited a fraction of 1% of the businesses that use the Internet, they would still have several times more members than all the registries that exist.
So they ought to be more able to use Constituency funding for travel than is true for the lesser funded "other" Constituencies.
CG: Maybe we should compare constituency budgets. That is probably the only accurate way of proving or disproving this. Why would it be any easier for registries or registrars to fund travel than other constituencies. It comes down to choices of the constituencies, choices about dues and spending choices. A constituency with more members might have to fund more travel if they chose to do so but that is all relative. It is relative to the membership size and the financial well being of the members. The BC constituency clearly has members that are financially much better off than all of the registries combined, so I suppose we could conclude that the BC should be better able to fund their own travel. I am not suggesting that because I know that there are businesses that cannot afford the travel but am pointing out the faulty reasoning.
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.
CG: This wouldn't be nearly as bad of an idea if it didn't translate into giving funding to some who would lobby for interests contrary to registry and registrar businesses. But because there needs to be a balance of all stakeholders, it seems reasonable to balance the travel funding.
-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
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 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com 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
Glad to have you on board Zahid. Please note a few responses below. Chuck Gomes, RyC ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 11:03 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Cc: icann@rodenbaugh.com Subject: RE: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 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. [Gomes, Chuck] There are a couple of assumptions in your statements here that need clarification: 1) It is true that for many registries and registrars domain registration services are core areas of business but it should not be concluded that domain registration services are there only business areas or even that they make up a majority of the organizations focus; 2) The fact that domain name policy involves a core business of a registry or registrar does not at all mean that participating in ICANN meetings would not be a challenge for some registries or registrars. Let me elaborate on 1) first: I am not a spokesman for SITA but I think it is safe to say that the domain registration services they provide for .aero represent a very small part of their business; at the same time, they have made major contributions to policy work in ICANN in the past. If SITA cannot justify sending someone to participate in an ICANN meeting, should they be denied ICANN travel funding because they are a registry? As I already responded to Mike Rodenbaugh, businesses in general are very much like registries. Some are small, some are large (much larger than any registries including VeriSign). Some can afford to send representatives to ICANN meetings and can justify that because of the importance of the issues at stake; some cannot. Regarding 2), registries and registrars are just like other businesses. Some have resources to send representatives to ICANN meetings; some do not, even it it is their core business. If we want all stakeholder groups to be represented, shouldn't travel funding be provided equitably to all groups who have a need? 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. [Gomes, Chuck] As Tim Ruiz already pointed out, ICANN revenue from registries and registrars comes from registrants so there is really nothing circular at all. The purpose for registrar and registry participation is the same as it is for business participation: policy development that involves ALL affected stakeholders. BTW, it so happens that registries and registrars are especially impacted because they have agreed via contracts to implement consensus policies. As an attorney, I would expect that you understand better than many the implications of doing that without knowing what those policies are in advance. 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. [Gomes, Chuck] You are correct. There should be a balance. If travel funding is going to be subsidized, it should be done in a way that is equitable for all stakeholder groups, certainly including businesses that cannot afford the travel expenses, but also including registrars and registries that cannot afford the expenses, to the extent that funds are so allocated. 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. [Gomes, Chuck] I am not sure the funding is actually intended for outreach but it may not be productive to debate that. I definitely do not agree that the purpose is "to get more representation of those for whom this does not represent a core business activity". To my knowledge, the purpose has never been expressed as such. I agree though that the purpose is to reduce some financial hurdles that some stakeholders who are willing to participate in policy development processes might have; in that sense, it is to increase representativeness in general. But that goal should apply across all stakeholder groups. If we are going to single out certain stakeholder groups, because for-profit businesses in general may have more financial resources than some not-for-profit organizations, then maybe we should conclude that the NCUC should get more support than the BC. In reality, I think it is problematic to over generalize about any stakeholder group whether it be contracted parties, noncommercial organizations or for-profit businesses. Some noncommercial organizations are very well funded; some are not. Some for-profit organizations are very well funded; some are not. So it seems best to examine the need on a case by case basis. 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 www.jamilandjamil.com <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> 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
Dear GNSO Colleagues, as I had not been able to participate timely in the discussions, and then seeing that the regulations had many “open ends” (to put it mildly), I was reluctant to join in for a while. But I changed my mind and write now, after having read the following strong words from Philip: = = Alan is entirely correct about mixed messages. Lets be clear this is a VERY BAD travel policy indeed. It is deflecting effort from policy to admin, it ignored the good advice given during public comments, it is divisive, it is mean, it is confused, it is mathematically inept. Is the Council and its policy making activity worth more than 0.3% of ICANN's total budget? Clearly not in the eyes of ICANN management. We should condemn this policy as a Council and request Board reconsideration. = = Of course I read also the many other contributions. For Cairo, I think our chair (and some others) will have to muddle through with the present regulations, I hope with some flexibility to take care – for example – of such questions as Kristina's whether “shared use be permitted if no one person needs full support.” I think this is a very practical question, considering our complex realities which were raised in some of the “good advice given during public comments.” For the future, I hope that the following two points will get attention. They both relate to a responsible use of scarce financial resources – even if the travel subsidy is only 0,3% of the budget, which is scarce enough. 1. Pricing For the Delhi meeting, I had to have a protracted and difficult discussion with the ICANN office to get permission ( ! ) to save travel expenses by buying my ticket locally. It was not just saving a few dollars. Instead of accepting the ICANN ticket priced at US$2,577.70 (“fare is now USD 2577.70 no lower fares available”), I was, after many mails back and forth, allowed ( ! ) to buy a ticket for US$695, though I finally bought it for only US$665 (without permission for this additional saving, as my clever and concerned local agent found, on their own initiative, a seat which had became available locally when another person canceled – only a local agent can do this in a timely manner). This was a completely legal purchase (for the same airline/flight number for which ICANN wanted to send me a ticket almost four times as expensive). My ticket was open to change the dates (on the same airline) - the ICANN ticket dates would have been fixed/non changeable. Later ICANN also conceded that my price was possible, because I am living in a “soft currency” country, and for local purchases (with hard currency) these prices exist. There are quite a number of other GNSO, ALAC, and ICANN Board members who live in “soft currency” countries. I saved 1,900 dollars on one fairly short trip from Cambodia to India. If you multiply such amounts for other “soft currency” supported ICANN travelers... Two surprises: a) I was later informed that my approach would probably not be acceptable for auditing. If the auditing does not allow to save US$1,900 on one person's single trip, the auditing principles are obviously wrong and have to be changed. When I see how difficult it is made to save huge amounts of travel funds, the good argument that we have to set priorities to save resources just does not sound real. (The wisdom of some Cambodian colleagues says: “Surely the interest to have central control on tickets involves some kickbacks.” It is not easy – in our context – to convince people that this is NOT so, when it is not encouraged to make huge saving with a decentralized approach.) b) This is more on a personal level, due to my naiveté: I asked if some of the US$1,900 I had saved from being spent on my ticket could be made available for my hotel costs in Delhi – but I was informed this would be unfair to other participants (for whom expensive tickets had been paid, I assume, no questions asked). 2. Routing and Timing I heard that some people who had received ICANN travel support (not GNSO) were made to leave before an ICANN meeting was over, because there was no departing flight available in the evening of the closing day. (If this is a rumor without a basis in reality – my apologies.) When I heard this, I got again the impression that the policy behind is guided by “top down central administration” and not by a “bottom-up approach starting with local reality and its needs.” To bring a person for thousands of dollars to a meeting, and then cut the time short to save a bit at the end, seems not to give due attention to the purpose of the whole affair. I dare to add here some elements of ICANN travel regulations which were sent to me at another occasion, which said something such as: “only tickets for direct connection to the event, and for the start and end time of the event” can be issued. I think that most of us, working as volunteers without pay on ICANN affairs, are busy also with different other obligations and tasks and interests, and I would like to suggest that we should not need special permits to come a day earlier to take care of jet lag, or to stay a day or two longer as some ICANN board members do also sometimes, or to do our own re-routing (of course always taking care of any additional payments, if necessary, on our own account). Conclusions My best wishes to handle Cairo. For the time after Cairo, the Council should enter into a serious reconsideration of a travel support policy draft – taking account of all kinds of practicalities, and consider concerns for a “central travel agency” operation only as a support and not as a control function – once we have clear principles and procedures. I do not intend to enter into a discussion whether GNSO members or WG Coordinators or competent Constituency representatives in WGs are “more important” - I am just surprised about the lack of clarity of basic common purpose, which becomes obvious in the present discussion. Even after the GNSO reform , the WGs will not be born by themselves. Not to assure that the GNSO Council can function well – representing ICANN constituencies – having the important function to discuss policy priorities, also for the creation of WGs and for the further handling of their results, cannot be in the interest of anybody committed to ICANN operating with a bottom-up approach. Norbert Klein
Thanks for the very helpful information Norbert. I agree with you totally that the procedures should include as much flexibility as possible to maximize cost efficiency and benefit as many people as possible. Regarding your kickback comment: Whether or not there are kickbacks to the ICANN travel agency by the airlines, I do not know because I am not knowledgeable enough about the travel industry. But I would be very surprised if ICANN received any kickbacks. One possible cause of inflexibility may be the following: it is possible that they may have had to commit to some sort of exclusivity in order to get some discounts. If so, then the question is whether the level of discounts are worth the loss of savings that might be obtained if they didn't have the exclusivity clause. Again, that is not a question I am qualified to answer. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Klein Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 11:45 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
Dear GNSO Colleagues,
as I had not been able to participate timely in the discussions, and then seeing that the regulations had many "open ends" (to put it mildly), I was reluctant to join in for a while. But I changed my mind and write now, after having read the following strong words from Philip:
= = Alan is entirely correct about mixed messages.
Lets be clear this is a VERY BAD travel policy indeed. It is deflecting effort from policy to admin, it ignored the good advice given during public comments, it is divisive, it is mean, it is confused, it is mathematically inept.
Is the Council and its policy making activity worth more than 0.3% of ICANN's total budget? Clearly not in the eyes of ICANN management.
We should condemn this policy as a Council and request Board reconsideration. = =
Of course I read also the many other contributions.
For Cairo, I think our chair (and some others) will have to muddle through with the present regulations, I hope with some flexibility to take care - for example - of such questions as Kristina's whether "shared use be permitted if no one person needs full support." I think this is a very practical question, considering our complex realities which were raised in some of the "good advice given during public comments."
For the future, I hope that the following two points will get attention. They both relate to a responsible use of scarce financial resources - even if the travel subsidy is only 0,3% of the budget, which is scarce enough.
1. Pricing
For the Delhi meeting, I had to have a protracted and difficult discussion with the ICANN office to get permission ( ! ) to save travel expenses by buying my ticket locally. It was not just saving a few dollars. Instead of accepting the ICANN ticket priced at US$2,577.70 ("fare is now USD 2577.70 no lower fares available"), I was, after many mails back and forth, allowed ( ! ) to buy a ticket for US$695, though I finally bought it for only US$665 (without permission for this additional saving, as my clever and concerned local agent found, on their own initiative, a seat which had became available locally when another person canceled - only a local agent can do this in a timely manner).
This was a completely legal purchase (for the same airline/flight number for which ICANN wanted to send me a ticket almost four times as expensive). My ticket was open to change the dates (on the same airline) - the ICANN ticket dates would have been fixed/non changeable.
Later ICANN also conceded that my price was possible, because I am living in a "soft currency" country, and for local purchases (with hard currency) these prices exist. There are quite a number of other GNSO, ALAC, and ICANN Board members who live in "soft currency" countries. I saved 1,900 dollars on one fairly short trip from Cambodia to India. If you multiply such amounts for other "soft currency" supported ICANN travelers...
Two surprises:
a) I was later informed that my approach would probably not be acceptable for auditing. If the auditing does not allow to save US$1,900 on one person's single trip, the auditing principles are obviously wrong and have to be changed.
When I see how difficult it is made to save huge amounts of travel funds, the good argument that we have to set priorities to save resources just does not sound real. (The wisdom of some Cambodian colleagues says: "Surely the interest to have central control on tickets involves some kickbacks." It is not easy - in our context - to convince people that this is NOT so, when it is not encouraged to make huge saving with a decentralized approach.)
b) This is more on a personal level, due to my naiveté: I asked if some of the US$1,900 I had saved from being spent on my ticket could be made available for my hotel costs in Delhi - but I was informed this would be unfair to other participants (for whom expensive tickets had been paid, I assume, no questions asked).
2. Routing and Timing
I heard that some people who had received ICANN travel support (not GNSO) were made to leave before an ICANN meeting was over, because there was no departing flight available in the evening of the closing day. (If this is a rumor without a basis in reality - my apologies.) When I heard this, I got again the impression that the policy behind is guided by "top down central administration" and not by a "bottom-up approach starting with local reality and its needs." To bring a person for thousands of dollars to a meeting, and then cut the time short to save a bit at the end, seems not to give due attention to the purpose of the whole affair.
I dare to add here some elements of ICANN travel regulations which were sent to me at another occasion, which said something such as: "only tickets for direct connection to the event, and for the start and end time of the event" can be issued. I think that most of us, working as volunteers without pay on ICANN affairs, are busy also with different other obligations and tasks and interests, and I would like to suggest that we should not need special permits to come a day earlier to take care of jet lag, or to stay a day or two longer as some ICANN board members do also sometimes, or to do our own re-routing (of course always taking care of any additional payments, if necessary, on our own account).
Conclusions
My best wishes to handle Cairo.
For the time after Cairo, the Council should enter into a serious reconsideration of a travel support policy draft - taking account of all kinds of practicalities, and consider concerns for a "central travel agency" operation only as a support and not as a control function - once we have clear principles and procedures.
I do not intend to enter into a discussion whether GNSO members or WG Coordinators or competent Constituency representatives in WGs are "more important" - I am just surprised about the lack of clarity of basic common purpose, which becomes obvious in the present discussion. Even after the GNSO reform , the WGs will not be born by themselves. Not to assure that the GNSO Council can function well - representing ICANN constituencies - having the important function to discuss policy priorities, also for the creation of WGs and for the further handling of their results, cannot be in the interest of anybody committed to ICANN operating with a bottom-up approach.
Norbert Klein
The way I read Norbert's comments, it was not an accusation of ICANN receiving kickback, but rather that in a world where such practices are not unknown (and in some areas, common), it is hard to convince people that there could be any other motive for refusing to say money. The rationale that it does not meet audit criteria is interesting. It is certainly the case that (to use Norbert's example, but not to accuse him of any shady dealings) that if he purchased the ticket in Cambodia, he might have an arrangement where the receipt he presented for repayment could have been "marked up". But if he does arrive at the meeting and the receipt is for a fraction of the cost of one purchased in the US, it sounds rather hard to fault (in my non-auditor opinion). Alan At 21/08/2008 03:20 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks for the very helpful information Norbert. I agree with you totally that the procedures should include as much flexibility as possible to maximize cost efficiency and benefit as many people as possible.
Regarding your kickback comment: Whether or not there are kickbacks to the ICANN travel agency by the airlines, I do not know because I am not knowledgeable enough about the travel industry. But I would be very surprised if ICANN received any kickbacks. One possible cause of inflexibility may be the following: it is possible that they may have had to commit to some sort of exclusivity in order to get some discounts. If so, then the question is whether the level of discounts are worth the loss of savings that might be obtained if they didn't have the exclusivity clause. Again, that is not a question I am qualified to answer.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Klein Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 11:45 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
Dear GNSO Colleagues,
as I had not been able to participate timely in the discussions, and then seeing that the regulations had many "open ends" (to put it mildly), I was reluctant to join in for a while. But I changed my mind and write now, after having read the following strong words from Philip:
= = Alan is entirely correct about mixed messages.
Lets be clear this is a VERY BAD travel policy indeed. It is deflecting effort from policy to admin, it ignored the good advice given during public comments, it is divisive, it is mean, it is confused, it is mathematically inept.
Is the Council and its policy making activity worth more than 0.3% of ICANN's total budget? Clearly not in the eyes of ICANN management.
We should condemn this policy as a Council and request Board reconsideration. = =
Of course I read also the many other contributions.
For Cairo, I think our chair (and some others) will have to muddle through with the present regulations, I hope with some flexibility to take care - for example - of such questions as Kristina's whether "shared use be permitted if no one person needs full support." I think this is a very practical question, considering our complex realities which were raised in some of the "good advice given during public comments."
For the future, I hope that the following two points will get attention. They both relate to a responsible use of scarce financial resources - even if the travel subsidy is only 0,3% of the budget, which is scarce enough.
1. Pricing
For the Delhi meeting, I had to have a protracted and difficult discussion with the ICANN office to get permission ( ! ) to save travel expenses by buying my ticket locally. It was not just saving a few dollars. Instead of accepting the ICANN ticket priced at US$2,577.70 ("fare is now USD 2577.70 no lower fares available"), I was, after many mails back and forth, allowed ( ! ) to buy a ticket for US$695, though I finally bought it for only US$665 (without permission for this additional saving, as my clever and concerned local agent found, on their own initiative, a seat which had became available locally when another person canceled - only a local agent can do this in a timely manner).
This was a completely legal purchase (for the same airline/flight number for which ICANN wanted to send me a ticket almost four times as expensive). My ticket was open to change the dates (on the same airline) - the ICANN ticket dates would have been fixed/non changeable.
Later ICANN also conceded that my price was possible, because I am living in a "soft currency" country, and for local purchases (with hard currency) these prices exist. There are quite a number of other GNSO, ALAC, and ICANN Board members who live in "soft currency" countries. I saved 1,900 dollars on one fairly short trip from Cambodia to India. If you multiply such amounts for other "soft currency" supported ICANN travelers...
Two surprises:
a) I was later informed that my approach would probably not be acceptable for auditing. If the auditing does not allow to save US$1,900 on one person's single trip, the auditing principles are obviously wrong and have to be changed.
When I see how difficult it is made to save huge amounts of travel funds, the good argument that we have to set priorities to save resources just does not sound real. (The wisdom of some Cambodian colleagues says: "Surely the interest to have central control on tickets involves some kickbacks." It is not easy - in our context - to convince people that this is NOT so, when it is not encouraged to make huge saving with a decentralized approach.)
b) This is more on a personal level, due to my naiveté: I asked if some of the US$1,900 I had saved from being spent on my ticket could be made available for my hotel costs in Delhi - but I was informed this would be unfair to other participants (for whom expensive tickets had been paid, I assume, no questions asked).
2. Routing and Timing
I heard that some people who had received ICANN travel support (not GNSO) were made to leave before an ICANN meeting was over, because there was no departing flight available in the evening of the closing day. (If this is a rumor without a basis in reality - my apologies.) When I heard this, I got again the impression that the policy behind is guided by "top down central administration" and not by a "bottom-up approach starting with local reality and its needs." To bring a person for thousands of dollars to a meeting, and then cut the time short to save a bit at the end, seems not to give due attention to the purpose of the whole affair.
I dare to add here some elements of ICANN travel regulations which were sent to me at another occasion, which said something such as: "only tickets for direct connection to the event, and for the start and end time of the event" can be issued. I think that most of us, working as volunteers without pay on ICANN affairs, are busy also with different other obligations and tasks and interests, and I would like to suggest that we should not need special permits to come a day earlier to take care of jet lag, or to stay a day or two longer as some ICANN board members do also sometimes, or to do our own re-routing (of course always taking care of any additional payments, if necessary, on our own account).
Conclusions
My best wishes to handle Cairo.
For the time after Cairo, the Council should enter into a serious reconsideration of a travel support policy draft - taking account of all kinds of practicalities, and consider concerns for a "central travel agency" operation only as a support and not as a control function - once we have clear principles and procedures.
I do not intend to enter into a discussion whether GNSO members or WG Coordinators or competent Constituency representatives in WGs are "more important" - I am just surprised about the lack of clarity of basic common purpose, which becomes obvious in the present discussion. Even after the GNSO reform , the WGs will not be born by themselves. Not to assure that the GNSO Council can function well - representing ICANN constituencies - having the important function to discuss policy priorities, also for the creation of WGs and for the further handling of their results, cannot be in the interest of anybody committed to ICANN operating with a bottom-up approach.
Norbert Klein
participants (8)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Avri Doria -
Gomes, Chuck -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Norbert Klein -
Thomas Keller -
Tim Ruiz -
Zahid Jamil