RE: [council] Community Travel support Procedure for Mexico City
Thanks for explanation Doug. Is there any particular reason why funded travelers have to make arrangements through ICANN Staff/Agents? Could the procedure simply allow X for airfare and X per diem for Lodging (possibly adjusted per meeting based on location) then allow the traveler to book their own airfare and accomodations and submit receipts for reimbursement? Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Community Travel support Procedure for Mexico City From: Doug Brent <doug.brent@icann.org> Date: Sun, January 11, 2009 12:53 pm To: Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza <caffsouza@gmail.com>, GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: Denise Michel <denise.michel@icann.org> 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
Great point. Especially for those that wish to travel in a class other than Coach over the distance! That is the point of the support right? ;) Adrian Kinderis -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Tuesday, 13 January 2009 1:43 AM To: Doug Brent Cc: Denise Michel; Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza; GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] Community Travel support Procedure for Mexico City Thanks for explanation Doug. Is there any particular reason why funded travelers have to make arrangements through ICANN Staff/Agents? Could the procedure simply allow X for airfare and X per diem for Lodging (possibly adjusted per meeting based on location) then allow the traveler to book their own airfare and accomodations and submit receipts for reimbursement? Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Community Travel support Procedure for Mexico City From: Doug Brent <doug.brent@icann.org> Date: Sun, January 11, 2009 12:53 pm To: Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza <caffsouza@gmail.com>, GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: Denise Michel <denise.michel@icann.org> 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
participants (2)
-
Adrian Kinderis -
Tim Ruiz