RE: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
Reading the recent exchanges, it strikes me that the formal policy is somewhat at odds with the PDP methodology that ICANN is trying to institutionalize. The travel documents says "While the calculation of travel support funding is based in part on the size of each council and its liaisons, the SO can choose to support other constituency members based on what will best serve each SO's policy development work, e.g. working group members could be supported." At the same time, we are being told that WG's are the way to get the REAL work done. So if we are really effective, and just oversee the processes, and have lots of active, functioning WGs, we are faced with the choice of taking little travel money for Council itself, or telling our hard-working WG chairs and members, that they are largely on their own regarding funding. ICANN has formally adopted the BGC recommendations to move forcefully to a WG model for policy development; it seems strange that at the same instant, they are saying that there will be no funding unless Council is willing to give up some of the travel funding that, as Robin points out, started with the difficulty of some Councillors to attend ICANN meetings. It seems like a strange mixture of messages. Alan At 19/08/2008 03:06 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
An even split for Cairo may make sense. But WG efforts *are* an intregal part of the policy process, and the goal of the funding is to broaden participation in policy processes. So why wouldn't the WGs fall under that?
My thinking was that as we move more fully to the WG model, finding good WG Chairs will be a challenge. The prospect of travel funding for ICANN meetings may prove to be an incentive. If we want some rules around that, that would make sense - not for Chairs who are also Councilors, not for Chairs who represent a constituency member, or whatever.
And for the record, I would not accept travel assistance for myself.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Date: Tue, August 19, 2008 1:47 pm To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Cc: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org>
No one has said Councilors are more important.
It was my understanding that we weren't funding "people" per se, but specific "roles" within the ICANN policy development process. If you want to change it so we are funding the people that we think are contributing the most, that is another story, and we can certainly have that conversation. But we should be clear what we are doing - right now it just looks like a "grab bag" has opened up.
Robin
On Aug 19, 2008, at 11:34 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I think we have to be careful about thinking of ourselves as more important as Councilors than other GNSO members. If someone is devoting considerable time to GNSO work regardless whether they are on the Council or not we should recognize that and help to meet their travel needs if possible.
Chuck
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 2:08 PM To: Greg Ruth Cc: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
I agree with Greg. What began as a process to ensure councilors could participate at council meetings has turned into something else entirely.
Robin
On Aug 19, 2008, at 10:50 AM, Greg Ruth wrote:
Basically, I disagree with the notion that some of the travel funding should be allocated to constituencies and some should be earmarked to support WG chairs. I believe the original intent was not to progress WG efforts, but rather to make sure that all stakeholders (constituencies) have an *equal* opportunity to participate. (I would think that a responsible WG chair should have been sure of his/her ability to participate *before* accepting the position.) Therefore, I am in favor of dividing the funding more or less equally among the consituencies and letting each decide how it can best support representation at ICANN meetings.
IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@ipjustice.org
IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@ipjustice.org
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. Philip
Hi, As I indicated in my first message on this we have two separate activities: - figuring out what to do for Cairo - deciding on a response if a response we wished to make. While we are still trying to figure out what to do for Cairo, I recommend that those who wish to work on a comment form a small Drafting Team to draft a first draft we can discuss at our next meeting. a. On 20 Aug 2008, at 04:15, Philip Sheppard wrote:
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.
Philip
I agree with Philip about this. I'm very concerned that after all this time and effort to make a council that functions (can attend mtgs), the proposal is for each constituency to send a single person to mtgs. ICANN is badly broken as an organization. All council members should be at council meetings to do council work. Robin On Aug 20, 2008, at 1:15 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:
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.
Philip
IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@ipjustice.org
Alan, You have a point there. However I suggest that at this time the GNSO reform is not yet finally defined and implemented, and for the immediate future it might be prudent to utilize any available funding with the councillors' needs in mind. Certainly some Council members (myself included) should find this funding assistance to be a great relief! Tony Harris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> To: "Council GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 5:53 PM Subject: RE: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
Reading the recent exchanges, it strikes me that the formal policy is somewhat at odds with the PDP methodology that ICANN is trying to institutionalize.
The travel documents says "While the calculation of travel support funding is based in part on the size of each council and its liaisons, the SO can choose to support other constituency members based on what will best serve each SO's policy development work, e.g. working group members could be supported."
At the same time, we are being told that WG's are the way to get the REAL work done. So if we are really effective, and just oversee the processes, and have lots of active, functioning WGs, we are faced with the choice of taking little travel money for Council itself, or telling our hard-working WG chairs and members, that they are largely on their own regarding funding.
ICANN has formally adopted the BGC recommendations to move forcefully to a WG model for policy development; it seems strange that at the same instant, they are saying that there will be no funding unless Council is willing to give up some of the travel funding that, as Robin points out, started with the difficulty of some Councillors to attend ICANN meetings.
It seems like a strange mixture of messages.
Alan
At 19/08/2008 03:06 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
An even split for Cairo may make sense. But WG efforts *are* an intregal part of the policy process, and the goal of the funding is to broaden participation in policy processes. So why wouldn't the WGs fall under that?
My thinking was that as we move more fully to the WG model, finding good WG Chairs will be a challenge. The prospect of travel funding for ICANN meetings may prove to be an incentive. If we want some rules around that, that would make sense - not for Chairs who are also Councilors, not for Chairs who represent a constituency member, or whatever.
And for the record, I would not accept travel assistance for myself.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Date: Tue, August 19, 2008 1:47 pm To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Cc: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org>
No one has said Councilors are more important.
It was my understanding that we weren't funding "people" per se, but specific "roles" within the ICANN policy development process. If you want to change it so we are funding the people that we think are contributing the most, that is another story, and we can certainly have that conversation. But we should be clear what we are doing - right now it just looks like a "grab bag" has opened up.
Robin
On Aug 19, 2008, at 11:34 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I think we have to be careful about thinking of ourselves as more important as Councilors than other GNSO members. If someone is devoting considerable time to GNSO work regardless whether they are on the Council or not we should recognize that and help to meet their travel needs if possible.
Chuck
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 2:08 PM To: Greg Ruth Cc: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
I agree with Greg. What began as a process to ensure councilors could participate at council meetings has turned into something else entirely.
Robin
On Aug 19, 2008, at 10:50 AM, Greg Ruth wrote:
Basically, I disagree with the notion that some of the travel funding should be allocated to constituencies and some should be earmarked to support WG chairs. I believe the original intent was not to progress WG efforts, but rather to make sure that all stakeholders (constituencies) have an *equal* opportunity to participate. (I would think that a responsible WG chair should have been sure of his/her ability to participate *before* accepting the position.) Therefore, I am in favor of dividing the funding more or less equally among the consituencies and letting each decide how it can best support representation at ICANN meetings.
IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@ipjustice.org
IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@ipjustice.org
Hi, Using the current level of support while working on longer term travel policy issues is exactly what I am hoping we can achieve with the procedure i suggested. I.e. For non NCA and non-chair (as Chair is NCA, 10 support slots) - every Constituency sends the GNSO email list a list with 0-3 names by Tuesday 26 August. [ a null list indicates that the constituency has decided not to request/support travel support for the Cairo meeting - this does _not_ affect their ability to participate in future support arrangements or in determining how the support will be distributed] - the first name on each constituency list automatically has support for Cairo. By the Staff' SO travel policy this includes both ICANN arranged transportation and per-diem paid after a trip report has been received by the Staff - requirement added in the FAQ issued today.) - For names 2 and 3 on the constituency provided lists, the council in a special meeting on 28 Aug, will determine how to fill any support slots that remain open after the first names (max of 6) have been accommodated. - for names 2-3 on each of the constituency's lists, it is recommended that a sentence or two be included on the reason/need so that the council can take this into account in its considerations. - As per the Staff SO travel policy, constituencies can place names of council members or other SO members on their list of candidates for support. Additionally, NCAs should confirm that they plan to attend the meeting under the conditions defined in the Staff's rules. In the meantime, individuals or a drafting team can begin work, in parallel and in a non-blocking manner, on a statement (or statements) reflecting GNSO and constituency concerns with the current volunteer travel policy as defined by the Staff. thanks a. On 21 Aug 2008, at 12:50, Anthony Harris wrote:
and for the immediate future it might be prudent to utilize any available funding with the councillors' needs in mind. Certainly some Council members (myself included) should find this funding assistance to be a great relief!
No "however" needed. Despite the newly announce decision to not allow money to be split between people, this money is there and should be used as best we can. Alan At 21/08/2008 12:50 PM, Anthony Harris wrote:
Alan,
You have a point there. However I suggest that at this time the GNSO reform is not yet finally defined and implemented, and for the immediate future it might be prudent to utilize any available funding with the councillors' needs in mind. Certainly some Council members (myself included) should find this funding assistance to be a great relief!
Tony Harris
----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> To: "Council GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 5:53 PM Subject: RE: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
Reading the recent exchanges, it strikes me that the formal policy is somewhat at odds with the PDP methodology that ICANN is trying to institutionalize. The travel documents says "While the calculation of travel support funding is based in part on the size of each council and its liaisons, the SO can choose to support other constituency members based on what will best serve each SO's policy development work, e.g. working group members could be supported." At the same time, we are being told that WG's are the way to get the REAL work done. So if we are really effective, and just oversee the processes, and have lots of active, functioning WGs, we are faced with the choice of taking little travel money for Council itself, or telling our hard-working WG chairs and members, that they are largely on their own regarding funding. ICANN has formally adopted the BGC recommendations to move forcefully to a WG model for policy development; it seems strange that at the same instant, they are saying that there will be no funding unless Council is willing to give up some of the travel funding that, as Robin points out, started with the difficulty of some Councillors to attend ICANN meetings. It seems like a strange mixture of messages. Alan
At 19/08/2008 03:06 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
An even split for Cairo may make sense. But WG efforts *are* an intregal part of the policy process, and the goal of the funding is to broaden participation in policy processes. So why wouldn't the WGs fall under that?
My thinking was that as we move more fully to the WG model, finding good WG Chairs will be a challenge. The prospect of travel funding for ICANN meetings may prove to be an incentive. If we want some rules around that, that would make sense - not for Chairs who are also Councilors, not for Chairs who represent a constituency member, or whatever.
And for the record, I would not accept travel assistance for myself.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Date: Tue, August 19, 2008 1:47 pm To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Cc: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org>
No one has said Councilors are more important.
It was my understanding that we weren't funding "people" per se, but specific "roles" within the ICANN policy development process. If you want to change it so we are funding the people that we think are contributing the most, that is another story, and we can certainly have that conversation. But we should be clear what we are doing - right now it just looks like a "grab bag" has opened up.
Robin
On Aug 19, 2008, at 11:34 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I think we have to be careful about thinking of ourselves as more important as Councilors than other GNSO members. If someone is devoting considerable time to GNSO work regardless whether they are on the Council or not we should recognize that and help to meet their travel needs if possible.
Chuck
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 2:08 PM To: Greg Ruth Cc: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
I agree with Greg. What began as a process to ensure councilors could participate at council meetings has turned into something else entirely.
Robin
On Aug 19, 2008, at 10:50 AM, Greg Ruth wrote:
Basically, I disagree with the notion that some of the travel funding should be allocated to constituencies and some should be earmarked to support WG chairs. I believe the original intent was not to progress WG efforts, but rather to make sure that all stakeholders (constituencies) have an *equal* opportunity to participate. (I would think that a responsible WG chair should have been sure of his/her ability to participate *before* accepting the position.) Therefore, I am in favor of dividing the funding more or less equally among the consituencies and letting each decide how it can best support representation at ICANN meetings.
IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@ipjustice.org
IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@ipjustice.org
participants (5)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Anthony Harris -
Avri Doria -
Philip Sheppard -
Robin Gross