RE: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
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, As a recommendation for a way to proceed for Cairo only - allowing a general discussion of principles and alignment with a revamped GSNO structure for later, how about: - Each Constituency suggests a prioritized list of names (0-3). The first name, if any, of each of the list is guaranteed and the council will discuss how to distribute the 4 remaining spots amount the other names that may be put forward. -- As an additional element, I would suggest that on names 2-3 on the list, the constituency indicate whether there is a special reason or need for including the name. -- I suggest that the names 2-3 on the list not be limited to council member but can include WG chairs if the constituency so recommends. - I suggest that each constituency submit its list to the council email list by Tuesday 26 Aug. - I also suggest that we schedule a special meeting for Thursday 29 Aug to finalize any issues. I understand that it may not be possible for all members to attend then, but as long as there is at least one member, all is better, from each constituency empowered to speak for their constituency, I am hoping we can reach agreement. Also, I understand that staff may be otherwise involved in this time slot as they may have prior commitments, but in this case I think that is a secondary consideration to figuring out how to handle this situation for Cairo in an agreeable manner. - In the meantime we make sure we have answers to all questions that may be critical to making our decisions in time for making reservations for Cairo. thanks a. On 19 Aug 2008, at 15:06, 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
Why does the Council even have to be involved with regard to whom a constituency wants to select for travel support? I would suggest that we give freedom to constituencies to independently select someone who needs travel support or to propose some shared use of the travel funds if that is permissable and send the name to the Council for transmittal to staff. We should not put ourselves in a position to second guess constituencies but rather should trust them to make this decision. We as a Council could then work on how to handle any remaining funds, which could be the focus of the special meeting. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 10:26 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
Hi,
As a recommendation for a way to proceed for Cairo only - allowing a general discussion of principles and alignment with a revamped GSNO structure for later, how about:
- Each Constituency suggests a prioritized list of names (0-3). The first name, if any, of each of the list is guaranteed and the council will discuss how to distribute the 4 remaining spots amount the other names that may be put forward.
-- As an additional element, I would suggest that on names 2-3 on the list, the constituency indicate whether there is a special reason or need for including the name.
-- I suggest that the names 2-3 on the list not be limited to council member but can include WG chairs if the constituency so recommends.
- I suggest that each constituency submit its list to the council email list by Tuesday 26 Aug.
- I also suggest that we schedule a special meeting for Thursday 29 Aug to finalize any issues. I understand that it may not be possible for all members to attend then, but as long as there is at least one member, all is better, from each constituency empowered to speak for their constituency, I am hoping we can reach agreement. Also, I understand that staff may be otherwise involved in this time slot as they may have prior commitments, but in this case I think that is a secondary consideration to figuring out how to handle this situation for Cairo in an agreeable manner.
- In the meantime we make sure we have answers to all questions that may be critical to making our decisions in time for making reservations for Cairo.
thanks
a.
On 19 Aug 2008, at 15:06, 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
Following up on Chuck's post, will shared use be permitted if no one person needs full support, but two persons need partial support? K -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 10:59 AM To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 Why does the Council even have to be involved with regard to whom a constituency wants to select for travel support? I would suggest that we give freedom to constituencies to independently select someone who needs travel support or to propose some shared use of the travel funds if that is permissable and send the name to the Council for transmittal to staff. We should not put ourselves in a position to second guess constituencies but rather should trust them to make this decision. We as a Council could then work on how to handle any remaining funds, which could be the focus of the special meeting. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 10:26 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
Hi,
As a recommendation for a way to proceed for Cairo only - allowing a general discussion of principles and alignment with a revamped GSNO structure for later, how about:
- Each Constituency suggests a prioritized list of names (0-3). The first name, if any, of each of the list is guaranteed and the council will discuss how to distribute the 4 remaining spots amount the other names that may be put forward.
-- As an additional element, I would suggest that on names 2-3 on the list, the constituency indicate whether there is a special reason or need for including the name.
-- I suggest that the names 2-3 on the list not be limited to council member but can include WG chairs if the constituency so recommends.
- I suggest that each constituency submit its list to the council email list by Tuesday 26 Aug.
- I also suggest that we schedule a special meeting for Thursday 29 Aug to finalize any issues. I understand that it may not be possible for all members to attend then, but as long as there is at least one member, all is better, from each constituency empowered to speak for their constituency, I am hoping we can reach agreement. Also, I understand that staff may be otherwise involved in this time slot as they may have prior commitments, but in this case I think that is a secondary consideration to figuring out how to handle this situation for Cairo in an agreeable manner.
- In the meantime we make sure we have answers to all questions that may be critical to making our decisions in time for making reservations for Cairo.
thanks
a.
On 19 Aug 2008, at 15:06, 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, That is one of the outstanding questions, i.e. can support for hotel/ expenses be given to someone other then a person who gets airfare. a. On 20 Aug 2008, at 11:22, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
Following up on Chuck's post, will shared use be permitted if no one person needs full support, but two persons need partial support?
K
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org ] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 10:59 AM To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
Why does the Council even have to be involved with regard to whom a constituency wants to select for travel support? I would suggest that we give freedom to constituencies to independently select someone who needs travel support or to propose some shared use of the travel funds if that is permissable and send the name to the Council for transmittal to staff. We should not put ourselves in a position to second guess constituencies but rather should trust them to make this decision. We as a Council could then work on how to handle any remaining funds, which could be the focus of the special meeting.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 10:26 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
Hi,
As a recommendation for a way to proceed for Cairo only - allowing a general discussion of principles and alignment with a revamped GSNO structure for later, how about:
- Each Constituency suggests a prioritized list of names (0-3). The first name, if any, of each of the list is guaranteed and the council will discuss how to distribute the 4 remaining spots amount the other names that may be put forward.
-- As an additional element, I would suggest that on names 2-3 on the list, the constituency indicate whether there is a special reason or need for including the name.
-- I suggest that the names 2-3 on the list not be limited to council member but can include WG chairs if the constituency so recommends.
- I suggest that each constituency submit its list to the council email list by Tuesday 26 Aug.
- I also suggest that we schedule a special meeting for Thursday 29 Aug to finalize any issues. I understand that it may not be possible for all members to attend then, but as long as there is at least one member, all is better, from each constituency empowered to speak for their constituency, I am hoping we can reach agreement. Also, I understand that staff may be otherwise involved in this time slot as they may have prior commitments, but in this case I think that is a secondary consideration to figuring out how to handle this situation for Cairo in an agreeable manner.
- In the meantime we make sure we have answers to all questions that may be critical to making our decisions in time for making reservations for Cairo.
thanks
a.
On 19 Aug 2008, at 15:06, 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, In my suggestion, the first name a constituency nominates goes through automatically. I.e. if the constituency picks one that person in on the list. of course a constituency could decide to pass. so in essence the council is _not_
involved with regard to whom a constituency wants to select for travel support?
in the first instance. All we do is take the first name on lists and put it on the council's list of people to get support. the suggestion for the way to handle the other 4 is for the constituencies to 'nominate' people if desired (postions 2 and 3 on their list) and then the council picks the remaining from those so nominated by the constituencies. In the best cse, it will work out and only 10 names will be offered. If > 10 are nominate then we figure out how to distribute the other after giving each constituency that wants, it first choice for support. (actually, my personal opinion, in the best of all possible worlds we would have all members of the council supported at a proper level - same as the board - but that is a longer term issue and I think we need to be ready to use the support we have for Cairo while figuring out how to appeal the procedure - if that is what the council decides to do) a. On 20 Aug 2008, at 10:58, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Why does the Council even have to be involved with regard to whom a constituency wants to select for travel support? I would suggest that we give freedom to constituencies to independently select someone who needs travel support or to propose some shared use of the travel funds if that is permissable and send the name to the Council for transmittal to staff. We should not put ourselves in a position to second guess constituencies but rather should trust them to make this decision. We as a Council could then work on how to handle any remaining funds, which could be the focus of the special meeting.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 10:26 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
Hi,
As a recommendation for a way to proceed for Cairo only - allowing a general discussion of principles and alignment with a revamped GSNO structure for later, how about:
- Each Constituency suggests a prioritized list of names (0-3). The first name, if any, of each of the list is guaranteed and the council will discuss how to distribute the 4 remaining spots amount the other names that may be put forward.
-- As an additional element, I would suggest that on names 2-3 on the list, the constituency indicate whether there is a special reason or need for including the name.
-- I suggest that the names 2-3 on the list not be limited to council member but can include WG chairs if the constituency so recommends.
- I suggest that each constituency submit its list to the council email list by Tuesday 26 Aug.
- I also suggest that we schedule a special meeting for Thursday 29 Aug to finalize any issues. I understand that it may not be possible for all members to attend then, but as long as there is at least one member, all is better, from each constituency empowered to speak for their constituency, I am hoping we can reach agreement. Also, I understand that staff may be otherwise involved in this time slot as they may have prior commitments, but in this case I think that is a secondary consideration to figuring out how to handle this situation for Cairo in an agreeable manner.
- In the meantime we make sure we have answers to all questions that may be critical to making our decisions in time for making reservations for Cairo.
thanks
a.
On 19 Aug 2008, at 15:06, 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
Thanks for the clarification Avri. Very helpful. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@psg.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 12:09 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
Hi,
In my suggestion, the first name a constituency nominates goes through automatically. I.e. if the constituency picks one that person in on the list. of course a constituency could decide to pass.
so in essence the council is _not_
involved with regard to whom a constituency wants to select for travel support?
in the first instance. All we do is take the first name on lists and put it on the council's list of people to get support.
the suggestion for the way to handle the other 4 is for the constituencies to 'nominate' people if desired (postions 2 and 3 on their list) and then the council picks the remaining from those so nominated by the constituencies.
In the best cse, it will work out and only 10 names will be offered. If > 10 are nominate then we figure out how to distribute the other after giving each constituency that wants, it first choice for support.
(actually, my personal opinion, in the best of all possible worlds we would have all members of the council supported at a proper level - same as the board - but that is a longer term issue and I think we need to be ready to use the support we have for Cairo while figuring out how to appeal the procedure - if that is what the council decides to do)
a.
On 20 Aug 2008, at 10:58, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Why does the Council even have to be involved with regard to whom a constituency wants to select for travel support? I would suggest that we give freedom to constituencies to independently select someone who needs travel support or to propose some shared use of the travel funds if that is permissable and send the name to the Council for transmittal to staff. We should not put ourselves in a position to second guess constituencies but rather should trust them to make this decision. We as a Council could then work on how to handle any remaining funds, which could be the focus of the special meeting.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 10:26 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
Hi,
As a recommendation for a way to proceed for Cairo only - allowing a general discussion of principles and alignment with a revamped GSNO structure for later, how about:
- Each Constituency suggests a prioritized list of names (0-3). The first name, if any, of each of the list is guaranteed and the council will discuss how to distribute the 4 remaining spots amount the other names that may be put forward.
-- As an additional element, I would suggest that on names 2-3 on the list, the constituency indicate whether there is a special reason or need for including the name.
-- I suggest that the names 2-3 on the list not be limited to council member but can include WG chairs if the constituency so recommends.
- I suggest that each constituency submit its list to the council email list by Tuesday 26 Aug.
- I also suggest that we schedule a special meeting for Thursday 29 Aug to finalize any issues. I understand that it may not be possible for all members to attend then, but as long as there is at least one member, all is better, from each constituency empowered to speak for their constituency, I am hoping we can reach agreement. Also, I understand that staff may be otherwise involved in this time slot as they may have prior commitments, but in this case I think that is a secondary consideration to figuring out how to handle this situation for Cairo in an agreeable manner.
- In the meantime we make sure we have answers to all questions that may be critical to making our decisions in time for making reservations for Cairo.
thanks
a.
On 19 Aug 2008, at 15:06, 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 (4)
-
Avri Doria -
Gomes, Chuck -
Rosette, Kristina -
Tim Ruiz