RE: [council] Travel support draft text
Agree. So what are the next steps? Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Travel support draft text From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Date: Wed, December 10, 2008 12:34 pm To: Greg Ruth <greg_ruth@yahoo.com> Cc: Olga Cavalli <olgac@fibertel.com.ar>, Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@aim.be>, Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Yes, this change makes sense. On Dec 10, 2008, at 10:19 AM, Greg Ruth wrote: I agree with this change. Greg From: Olga Cavalli <olgac@fibertel.com.ar> To: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@aim.be> Cc: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 1:11:12 PM Subject: Re: [council] Travel support draft text Phillip, yo make a good suggestion. I personally agree. If I do not hear any other comments I will rewrite the draft document. We should review this issue during our next conference call. Best Olga 2008/12/8 Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@aim.be> Olga, thanks for circulating this. Seems fine. On reporting I think we can be transparent without being bureaucratic and burdensome on volunteers. There is no merit in 15 Council members all writing a report saying "I attended a Council meeting". Moreover, I presume the system is that Constituencies nominate who gets the support but then the individual still needs to apply to ICANN staff for that support ? If so staff is fully informed of who gets what and other staff is fully informed of who attended what. Suggest the following instead: Philip -------------------- Transparency and Reporting: ICANN staff will publish the names of all those who receive travel support together with a list of the relevant meeting(s) for which the support was given and which were attended by the support recipient. 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, I believe the next step, once we have a document that is stable from the drafting team and has all the edits people on the council want to contribute, is to have a motion on making this the GNSO policy on distributing the funds. I also think it would probably be good to get constituency and public feedback on this motion and the document before we vote. We also need to make sure that we understand the conditions under which the staff will allow the constituencies to:
The use of travel support funds is to be solely determined by each constituency independently as it sees fit to most effectively progress the work of the GNSO.
Ie. are we still under the all or nothing regime or has the staff decided to allow room, expense and travel to be allocated separately by the constituencies. I understand they have not accepted a proposal to allow the funds to be allocated directly by the constituencies (or do I misunderstand). We also need to get this done soon, as the next meetings allocations are fast approaching. a. On 10 Dec 2008, at 17:01, Tim Ruiz wrote:
Agree. So what are the next steps?
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Travel support draft text From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Date: Wed, December 10, 2008 12:34 pm To: Greg Ruth <greg_ruth@yahoo.com> Cc: Olga Cavalli <olgac@fibertel.com.ar>, Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@aim.be>, Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org>
Yes, this change makes sense.
On Dec 10, 2008, at 10:19 AM, Greg Ruth wrote:
I agree with this change.
Greg From: Olga Cavalli <olgac@fibertel.com.ar> To: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@aim.be> Cc: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 1:11:12 PM Subject: Re: [council] Travel support draft text
Phillip, yo make a good suggestion. I personally agree. If I do not hear any other comments I will rewrite the draft document. We should review this issue during our next conference call. Best Olga
2008/12/8 Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@aim.be> Olga, thanks for circulating this. Seems fine. On reporting I think we can be transparent without being bureaucratic and burdensome on volunteers. There is no merit in 15 Council members all writing a report saying "I attended a Council meeting". Moreover, I presume the system is that Constituencies nominate who gets the support but then the individual still needs to apply to ICANN staff for that support ? If so staff is fully informed of who gets what and other staff is fully informed of who attended what. Suggest the following instead: Philip
-------------------- Transparency and Reporting: ICANN staff will publish the names of all those who receive travel support together with a list of the relevant meeting(s) for which the support was given and which were attended by the support recipient.
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
It may be useful to have first from staff a comment on the practicality / operation of what we are proposing. ie - will it be a lump sum given 1st Jan to each constituency or a budget against which constituencies draw down? - how will the fixed sum/budget be determined if there is a variable cost of the nom com and GNSO chair travel (eg variable cost of 3 air tickets and variable days stayed). - if a new constituency appears in 2009 does the sum/budget to the old constituencies go down? - is a travel budget an incentive to form a new constituency? (Question for the OPS group to consider ?) Philip
With reference to Philip's last issue: " is a travel budget an incentive to form a new constituency?" In view of the fact that existing Constituency members (e.g. Council reps) had to make their own arrangements to attend ICANN meetings for some 9 years, before travel funding became available from ICANN, then it might seem appropriate that new constituencies be called on to do the same for an initial period (1 or 2 years?) before they hold title to share in such funding. This would help in discouraging that type of incentive... Tony Harris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be> To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 5:26 AM Subject: RE: [council] Travel support draft text
It may be useful to have first from staff a comment on the practicality / operation of what we are proposing.
ie - will it be a lump sum given 1st Jan to each constituency or a budget against which constituencies draw down? - how will the fixed sum/budget be determined if there is a variable cost of the nom com and GNSO chair travel (eg variable cost of 3 air tickets and variable days stayed). - if a new constituency appears in 2009 does the sum/budget to the old constituencies go down? - is a travel budget an incentive to form a new constituency? (Question for the OPS group to consider ?)
Philip
I am not an interested party in this discussion, but as I read this, it strikes me that we are making an assumption here. If we are talking about the general case and not just this year... For the present budget year, the travel allocation was based on the number of GNSO Councillors. In the new GNSO model, it is a SG responsibility to say how council seats map to Constituencies (if indeed constituencies exist in their present form). So will the money/allocation#-of-trips go to constituencies, or SG? Alan At 11/12/2008 03:26 AM, you wrote:
It may be useful to have first from staff a comment on the practicality / operation of what we are proposing.
ie - will it be a lump sum given 1st Jan to each constituency or a budget against which constituencies draw down? - how will the fixed sum/budget be determined if there is a variable cost of the nom com and GNSO chair travel (eg variable cost of 3 air tickets and variable days stayed). - if a new constituency appears in 2009 does the sum/budget to the old constituencies go down? - is a travel budget an incentive to form a new constituency? (Question for the OPS group to consider ?)
Philip
participants (5)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Anthony Harris -
Avri Doria -
Philip Sheppard -
Tim Ruiz