Fwd: Community Travel support Procedure for Mexico City
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kevin Wilson <kevin.wilson@icann.org> Date: Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:06 PM Subject: Community Travel support Procedure for Mexico City Dear Supporting Organisation participants: The following information is provided to help you take advantage of the travel funding made available for the ICANN Mexico City meeting through the new Community Travel Support Procedure<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/travel-support/revised-procedure-11aug08-en.htm>(CTSP). Since travel arrangements for the Mexico City meeting need to be completed this month, your organisation may want to use a "temporary" process for providing a list of ICANN-funded travelers for this meeting. By *22 January 2009*, staff needs a list of supported travelers - 13 names from the GNSO and 12 names from the ccNSO including the chair and NomCom appointees. (Please note the additional important deadlines for Mexico City travel are included below.) We look forward to receiving the final, proposed travel allocation procedure for your SO. Please email it to me and ICANN's travel coordinator at the following addresses: kevin.wilson@icann.org and travel-support@icann.org *1) Deadlines for ICANN-funded travel to the **Mexico City meeting. * * *To ensure all available travel funds can be used for the ICANN Mexico City meeting, which starts 2 November, the following schedule will apply: * * - *22 January (14:00 PDT) – *deadline for each Supporting Organisation Chair to provide ICANN Staff – travel-support@icann.org – with the list of travelers who are to receive travel support under the CTSP. If your SO has named you as a recipient of support for Mexico City, you will be contacted by ICANN Travel Coordination Staff with complete information on how your arrangements will be made. * * - *28 January (14:00 PDT) – *deadline for room bookings. All travelers' arrival and departure dates need to be finalized by this date because this is the date by which all hotel room reservations must be contracted for or released. After this date, any additional cost for changes to travelers' arrival and departure details will be paid by the traveler, unless otherwise agreed to in advance, in writing, by ICANN Travel Staff.* * - *28 January (14:00 PDT) – *deadline for flight bookings. Any approved traveler who has not completed their flight on or before this time will no longer be eligible for sponsored air travel.* * *2) Important change* - In response to community requests for this meeting air fare and hotel support can now be split between two designated travelers (1 person would receive only hotel support and another person would receive only air fare support, and this would be counted as 1 funded traveler for the purposes of an SO's allocation. *3) Requirements for ICANN-funded travelers for the **Mexico City include the following: * - The names of all ICANN-supported travelers will be publicly posted on the ICANN community travel webpage ( http://www.icann.org/en/topics/travel-support/), along with the class of travel supported, and the amount of travel funding received. - For newly supported travelers (excluding Chair and NomCom-appointees) people who receive travel support will be asked to complete a meeting attendance form which will be publicly posted, and also will be required to attend all relevant, scheduled SO-related meetings in Mexico City (as identified by your SO). Each SO is encouraged to provide guidance on the general content requirements for travelers' reports. - Per diem payments to funded travelers will be issued after their reports are received and attendance records verified. This is in response to the community requests to ensure transparency, accountability and efficacy for ICANN travel funding, and also is consistent with the approach used for ICANN's fellowship program participants. * * *4) Individuals who are not members of an SO Council can be selected to receive travel support. *As stated, the goal of the CTSP is "to lower the barrier to participation, broaden the group of participants and, advance the work" of I CANN. SO's are asked to provide a list of individuals to receive travel funding "based on best meeting the policy-making needs of the entity." Any SO member is eligible to receive travel funding. * * The GNSO has been asked to provide ICANN Staff with the names of 13 individuals (including chair and NomCom appointees) to receive travel funding, and the ccNSO has been asked to provide ICANN Staff with the names of 12 individuals (including chair and NomCom appointees) to receive travel funding. Although these numbers were based on the total number of Council members from each SO, travel funding is not restricted to Council members. *5) SO's should consider factoring "need" into selection of travelers. *This is one element which SOs may wish to consider when determining who should receive travel support. This supports ICANN's goal of lowering the barrier to participation. *6)* *If an SO does not use all of its available travel slots for a given meeting, they can be 'rolled over' to a subsequent meeting. *This applies until the end of each ICANN fiscal year, after which point the unused support is 'lost' and the new fiscal year – and a potentially revised CTSP applies. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you need further information. Kevin Wilson
Denise, further to our Council discussion yesterday could you please elicit a response to resolution 2 of the Council motion on travel support passed at our December 18 meeting? This is Council's response re Mexico City and the deadlines you referenced. Many thanks. Philip ------------------- Whereas: Council welcomes the fact that ICANN have allocated some funds for GNSO travel. 1. Council regrets that the current proposal imposes administrative difficulty and may thus reduce the total budget available. 2. Council calls upon ICANN staff to nominate by 15 January 2009 a fixed sum for fiscal year 2009 that will be granted to each of the constituencies currently recognised under the ICANN by-laws of 29 May 2008. Such sum should exclude any budget to cover the costs of nom com delegates or GNSO chair travel. 3. Council requests Constituencies to 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. The motion unanimously passed by voice vote
This is something that we have been discussing at NCUC. It would be nice to have some input on the eventual refusal of resolution 2 and, most what is more important, to let the council know the reasons why one system for allocating funds for travel expenses was chosen and not the one indicated in the GNSO motion. Such input would surely give us more information and grounds to decide on how to best react to the travel support procedure. Thank you, Carlos 2009/1/9 Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@aim.be>
Denise, further to our Council discussion yesterday could you please elicit a response to resolution 2 of the Council motion on travel support passed at our December 18 meeting? This is Council's response re Mexico City and the deadlines you referenced.
Many thanks. Philip -------------------
Whereas: Council welcomes the fact that ICANN have allocated some funds for GNSO travel.
1. Council regrets that the current proposal imposes administrative difficulty and may thus reduce the total budget available.
*2. Council calls upon ICANN staff to nominate by 15 January 2009 a fixed sum for fiscal year 2009 that will be granted to each of the constituencies currently recognised under the ICANN by-laws of 29 May 2008. Such sum should exclude any budget to cover the costs of nom com delegates or GNSO chair travel. * 3. Council requests Constituencies to 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.
The motion unanimously passed by voice vote
Carlos and Council, On 1/9/09 4:48 AM, "Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza" <caffsouza@gmail.com> wrote: This is something that we have been discussing at NCUC. It would be nice to have some input on the eventual refusal of resolution 2 and, most what is more important, to let the council know the reasons why one system for allocating funds for travel expenses was chosen and not the one indicated in the GNSO motion. Such input would surely give us more information and grounds to decide on how to best react to the travel support procedure. Thank you, Carlos 2009/1/9 Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@aim.be> Denise, further to our Council discussion yesterday could you please elicit a response to resolution 2 of the Council motion on travel support passed at our December 18 meeting? This is Council's response re Mexico City and the deadlines you referenced. Many thanks. Philip ------------------- Whereas: Council welcomes the fact that ICANN have allocated some funds for GNSO travel. 1. Council regrets that the current proposal imposes administrative difficulty and may thus reduce the total budget available. 2. Council calls upon ICANN staff to nominate by 15 January 2009 a fixed sum for fiscal year 2009 that will be granted to each of the constituencies currently recognised under the ICANN by-laws of 29 May 2008. Such sum should exclude any budget to cover the costs of nom com delegates or GNSO chair travel. 3. Council requests Constituencies to 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. The motion unanimously passed by voice vote -- Doug Brent Chief Operating Officer ICANN Voice: +1 310.301.3871 Mobile: +1 650.996.4447 Fax: +1 310.823.8649
Carlos and Council, Sorry. I thought the issue of budget allocation was discussed directly with the travel committee and understood, and as noted before, I'd be happy to discuss this with relevant counselors at any time. Short answer: we have not identified a way to allocate a budget to a Supporting Organization or Constituency. Let me explain. As I've discussed with several people, my personal view is that often the best decisions are made by the people closest to the work, so why not just allocate a budget? There is a balance point that makes this travel issue awkward since there is no clear chain of fiduciary responsibility (in the corporate sense) at the Supporting Organizations level. ICANN has a fiduciary responsibility to establish a process for controlled allocation of expenditures under business laws, particularly as a tax-exempt organization. There is no easy way to implement what appears "obvious" - just give organizations a budget to spend. Financial controls are required to remain consistent with taxation rules for businesses. Resource allocation in all instances should follow pre-defined controlled processes as a way to prove ICANN has control over the kinds of business ills - including financial mismanagement and worse - that we read about in the papers these days. That's why the community travel support approach is essentially a pre-approved expense reimbursement plan. I hope that provides some additional clarity behind the rationale, and would Still like to see how we can put more flexibility into travel support while maintaining appropriate controls this for next fiscal year. Perhaps a meeting with the travel committee, including ICANN's CFO Kevin Wilson who will be taking on this work on the staff side, and other interested councilors in Mexico City would be a good next step. Thanks, Doug -- Doug Brent Chief Operating Officer ICANN Voice: +1 310.301.3871 Mobile: +1 650.996.4447 Fax: +1 310.823.8649 On 1/9/09 4:48 AM, "Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza" <caffsouza@gmail.com> wrote:
This is something that we have been discussing at NCUC. It would be nice to have some input on the eventual refusal of resolution 2 and, most what is more important, to let the council know the reasons why one system for allocating funds for travel expenses was chosen and not the one indicated in the GNSO motion. Such input would surely give us more information and grounds to decide on how to best react to the travel support procedure.
Thank you, Carlos
2009/1/9 Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@aim.be>
Denise, further to our Council discussion yesterday could you please elicit a response to resolution 2 of the Council motion on travel support passed at our December 18 meeting? This is Council's response re Mexico City and the deadlines you referenced. Many thanks. Philip -------------------
Whereas: Council welcomes the fact that ICANN have allocated some funds for GNSO travel.
1. Council regrets that the current proposal imposes administrative difficulty and may thus reduce the total budget available.
2. Council calls upon ICANN staff to nominate by 15 January 2009 a fixed sum for fiscal year 2009 that will be granted to each of the constituencies currently recognised under the ICANN by-laws of 29 May 2008. Such sum should exclude any budget to cover the costs of nom com delegates or GNSO chair travel.
3. Council requests Constituencies to 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.
The motion unanimously passed by voice vote
Doug, thank you for explaining the current thinking re community travel support. I am not going to take issue with questions of US fiduciary responsibility though do note we are talking about less than 0.3% of ICANN's budget. Tax authorities would have to be grossly overstaffed to bother about this. If however you at present can only operate a system of pre-approvals then the solution is clear. Increase the budget to allow for the funding of all GNSO Councilors on a pre-approval basis. (This will still not exceed 0.6% of the total ICANN budget). That will end the divisive and impossible position that the present arrangements have forced upon Council. The tiny amount required is surely within your 2009 contingency so could be implemented immediately. Philip
Doug, I agree with Philip - by far the easiest way to untie this Gordian knot is simply to fund travel for all GNSO councilors. Greg ________________________________ From: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@aim.be> To: Doug Brent <doug.brent@icann.org> Cc: Denise Michel <denise.michel@icann.org>; GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 4:31:58 AM Subject: [council] Community Travel support Procedure for Mexico City Doug, thank you for explaining the current thinking re community travel support. I am not going to take issue with questions of US fiduciary responsibility though do note we are talking about less than 0.3% of ICANN's budget. Tax authorities would have to be grossly overstaffed to bother about this. If however you at present can only operate a system of pre-approvals then the solution is clear. Increase the budget to allow for the funding of all GNSO Councilors on a pre-approval basis. (This will still not exceed 0.6% of the total ICANN budget). That will end the divisive and impossible position that the present arrangements have forced upon Council. The tiny amount required is surely within your 2009 contingency so could be implemented immediately. Philip
participants (5)
-
Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza -
Denise Michel -
Doug Brent -
Greg Ruth -
Philip Sheppard