Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-13aug08-en.htm Please note that ICANN Posts Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 13 August 2008 The work to create a community travel support procedure began with a specific call for travel support in late 2007 by some in the community (though this issue has been discussed for some time). There has been extensive consultation on community travel support. It began as a workshop in Delhi, with comments received and an analysis posted. Further, a draft was posted in June, discussed in budget meetings in Paris, and again with fairly extensive comment in person, via email and on the web. These second round of comments were summarized and analyzed. This last summary is available at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/travel-support-draft/msg00013.html The revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 document http://www.icann.org/en/topics/travel-support/revised-procedure-11aug08-en.h... strives to accommodate the community feedback. Of course, this is a subject about which complete agreement is not possible. However, there is strong agreement within the community that a procedure exist that is documented, transparent, consistent, adhered-to, and reviewed/revised for efficacy. Comparing the final procedure with the draft discussed in Paris, some key changes include: - Guarantees travel support for NomCom-nominated counselors - Stresses transparency in application and post-meeting reporting - Allows for some flexibility in the allocation mechanism within a SO without overburdening the Chair The document strives to be complete without being overly-detailed. This will leave many specific questions unanswered. ICANN staff will develop and post a FAQ (frequently asked questions document) to capture questions, and provide consistent answers to the entire community. If you have questions, please send them to the ICANN staff member with whom you work most closely, or send them to travel-support@icann.org . Staff will collect feedback on issues that arise in the first implementation of this procedure, now through the Cairo meeting, and Staff will make clarifications, as needed. Additionally, Staff will conduct a complete review of the Community Travel Support Procedure at year end with a public consultation at the June ICANN meeting, and this will be an opportunity for RSSAC to provide additional input if desired. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
Hi, Now that this has been released, we need to determine rather soon, how the available travel slots (10) for Cairo will be allocated. Once the bi-cameral approach is approved, if it is, this might be easy, for now we have 6 constituencies and 10 slots and that means they do not divide equally. Some questions that need to be answered (there may be more): - do all constituencies wish to take part in the allocation? - should allocation be based on need? - - if so how is need determined? -- is self declaration of need sufficient? -- and what if more then 10 indicate need? - do individual council members request support or should the request come from the constituency? We may also want to provide feedback on the policy, but that is less critical at this point then of making sure we have the names in time for 60 days prior to the meeting. My assumption is that we need to provide our list of names by the end of August. a. On 14 Aug 2008, at 05:54, Glen de Saint Géry wrote:
[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org]
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-13aug08-en.htm
Please note that ICANN Posts Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
13 August 2008
The work to create a community travel support procedure began with a specific call for travel support in late 2007 by some in the community (though this issue has been discussed for some time). There has been extensive consultation on community travel support. It began as a workshop in Delhi, with comments received and an analysis posted. Further, a draft was posted in June, discussed in budget meetings in Paris, and again with fairly extensive comment in person, via email and on the web. These second round of comments were summarized and analyzed. This last summary is available at:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/travel-support-draft/msg00013.html
The revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 document http://www.icann.org/en/topics/travel-support/revised-procedure-11aug08-en.h... strives to accommodate the community feedback. Of course, this is a subject about which complete agreement is not possible. However, there is strong agreement within the community that a procedure exist that is documented, transparent, consistent, adhered-to, and reviewed/revised for efficacy.
Comparing the final procedure with the draft discussed in Paris, some key changes include:
- Guarantees travel support for NomCom-nominated counselors - Stresses transparency in application and post-meeting reporting - Allows for some flexibility in the allocation mechanism within a SO without overburdening the Chair
The document strives to be complete without being overly-detailed. This will leave many specific questions unanswered. ICANN staff will develop and post a FAQ (frequently asked questions document) to capture questions, and provide consistent answers to the entire community. If you have questions, please send them to the ICANN staff member with whom you work most closely, or send them to travel-support@icann.org .
Staff will collect feedback on issues that arise in the first implementation of this procedure, now through the Cairo meeting, and Staff will make clarifications, as needed. Additionally, Staff will conduct a complete review of the Community Travel Support Procedure at year end with a public consultation at the June ICANN meeting, and this will be an opportunity for RSSAC to provide additional input if desired.
Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
My understanding is that the budget is calculated based on a person-count, but that it could be spent other ways - for instance, 20 people could be funded at a 50% level. Alan At 14/08/2008 07:36 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
Now that this has been released, we need to determine rather soon, how the available travel slots (10) for Cairo will be allocated. Once the bi-cameral approach is approved, if it is, this might be easy, for now we have 6 constituencies and 10 slots and that means they do not divide equally.
Some questions that need to be answered (there may be more):
- do all constituencies wish to take part in the allocation?
- should allocation be based on need? - - if so how is need determined? -- is self declaration of need sufficient? -- and what if more then 10 indicate need?
- do individual council members request support or should the request come from the constituency?
We may also want to provide feedback on the policy, but that is less critical at this point then of making sure we have the names in time for 60 days prior to the meeting. My assumption is that we need to provide our list of names by the end of August.
a.
On 14 Aug 2008, at 05:54, Glen de Saint Géry wrote:
[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org]
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-13aug08-en.htm
Please note that ICANN Posts Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
13 August 2008
The work to create a community travel support procedure began with a specific call for travel support in late 2007 by some in the community (though this issue has been discussed for some time). There has been extensive consultation on community travel support. It began as a workshop in Delhi, with comments received and an analysis posted. Further, a draft was posted in June, discussed in budget meetings in Paris, and again with fairly extensive comment in person, via email and on the web. These second round of comments were summarized and analyzed. This last summary is available at:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/travel-support-draft/msg00013.html
The revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 document http://www.icann.org/en/topics/travel-support/revised-procedure-11aug08-en.h... strives to accommodate the community feedback. Of course, this is a subject about which complete agreement is not possible. However, there is strong agreement within the community that a procedure exist that is documented, transparent, consistent, adhered-to, and reviewed/revised for efficacy.
Comparing the final procedure with the draft discussed in Paris, some key changes include:
- Guarantees travel support for NomCom-nominated counselors - Stresses transparency in application and post-meeting reporting - Allows for some flexibility in the allocation mechanism within a SO without overburdening the Chair
The document strives to be complete without being overly-detailed. This will leave many specific questions unanswered. ICANN staff will develop and post a FAQ (frequently asked questions document) to capture questions, and provide consistent answers to the entire community. If you have questions, please send them to the ICANN staff member with whom you work most closely, or send them to travel-support@icann.org .
Staff will collect feedback on issues that arise in the first implementation of this procedure, now through the Cairo meeting, and Staff will make clarifications, as needed. Additionally, Staff will conduct a complete review of the Community Travel Support Procedure at year end with a public consultation at the June ICANN meeting, and this will be an opportunity for RSSAC to provide additional input if desired.
Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
Hi, One other consideration that has been brought up in the past is whether the support needs to be extended to people not in the council. For example, as we start to ask more non council members to chair WGs, will we need to share some of the support with those we ask to chair a WG? If so, and we use a mostly constituency based model as opposed to a purely need based model, might we want to give 1 spot (or 1 equivalent if it goes that way) to each constituency with 2 (or 2 equivalents) held for WG chairs or constituencies with an extra need for an extra council member(s). a.
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), and excludes liaisons who should be funded by their own base organisation's budget. 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, Yes, it is important to find out who in the next two weeks. Two things: - Doug in his message indicated that they would be coming out with a FAQ answering all of the questions that had been raised. I suggest anyone with questions raise them today if possible. - Do we need to schedule a special council meeting in the next two week to discuss just this issue? Some comments below. On 18 Aug 2008, at 03:22, 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),
I thin it is the same budget, just different allocation within that budget. i believe that the council minus NCAs has 10 slots to fill.
and excludes liaisons who should be funded by their own base organisation's budget.
I believe that should be the case. Though if a liaison is not a supported member of their organization, i.e. if ALAC picks a non ALAC member as a liaison I do not know how they are covered. In this case, I think Alan is an NCA assigned to ALAC and thus should be covered under ALAC's allocation. Of course the same does not apply to our GC liaison, but I think that is a moot point.
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.
Even if we decide as a council that we will leave picking the person to the constituency, we still need to figure out as a council how to allocate 10 to 6 constituencies.
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.
I think it is a complicated question for everyone employed in an industry that profits from the domain name business. This is perhaps one reason why using need as a criterion may be reasonable - even if it is the constituency that provides the names of their council members who are in need of support. a.
Why would we want to restrict this to Councilors only? If we truly want this to apply to those who can demonstrate need, limiting it to Councilors could unreasonably eliminate many in the GNSO who have need but are serving in roles other than on the Council. There are only three RyC Council reps and I don't know yet except for myself what their need is. But what if none of us can establish a legitimate need and there are others in the RyC that do have a need and are participating in a WG that will be meeting in Cairo? I do agree that there is an ethical dimension that needs to be considered. That may be complicated but it still should be consdered. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 3:23 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
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), and excludes liaisons who should be funded by their own base organisation's budget. 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
is saying who? And why should it be that way? Councilours are not the only ones that are important for the GNSO policy process. Especially with the more working group focused approach we will have in the future, I can definitely see a strong benefit in having more leeway in distributing the available funds. Best, tom
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Philip Sheppard Gesendet: Montag, 18. August 2008 15:59 An: 'Council GNSO' Betreff: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
The policy has been designed for Council members and restricted to them.
Philip, I think we should explore the possibilities of the current funding before we ask for more. tom
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Philip Sheppard Gesendet: Montag, 18. August 2008 16:10 An: 'Council GNSO' Betreff: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
If we have new needs we should request new funds.
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, I think one thing we need to know to use the support for Cairo fairly is how many people cannot come without some level of support. We have 18 Council members who are qualified for assistance and 2 WG chairs who might be qualified for assistance - how many need support at this point and cannot attend otherwise? I also think we need to find a solution that works for Cairo, I am sure that the restructuring of the GNSO Council which should have been decided before the meting after Cairo will force a change in any scheme we would come up with. a.
participants (6)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Avri Doria -
Glen de Saint Géry -
Gomes, Chuck -
Philip Sheppard -
Thomas Keller