Hi, In preparation for our conference call tomorrow, I am enclosing in this email the draft text prepared by the drafting team, which includes the suggestions made by Phillip and acceppted by some of us. There is also a brief summary of Doug Brent´s response in relation with the request of flexibility for fund allocation. There has not been a lot of feedback from constituencies to this text, so am not sure if we are ready yet to draft a motion. Looking forward to talking to you tomorrow. Regards Olga *GNSO PRINCIPLES FOR ALLOCATION OF TRAVEL SUPPORT FUNDS FOR ICANN MEETING* Allocation and Control: The total GNSO Travel support budget (less the amount allotted to the NCAs and GNSO Council chair) should be divided to the extent possible on an equal basis among the GNSO constituencies. The use of travel support funds is for travel to ICANN meetings, including regional, inter-sessional, and face-to-face working group meetings. 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. The GNSO Council has no role in deciding how these funds are allocated to individuals. 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. *Highligts of the comments sent by Doug Brent:* The current travel procedure talks about a certain number of people getting travel support for meetings (air and per diem). To add some flexibility at the cost of some additional tracking, ICANN can enable a split of that support; a certain number receiving air reimbursement and a certain number receiving per diem support (where these could be different people). To belabor the point for clarity, if before there were ten total people supported for air and per diem, now perhaps five could receive both air and per diem, five could receive air only, and five per diem only. Using this approach there will be a number of supported people, not a fund. Then, each constituency would be allocated some number of supported travelers. If we go by number of travelers, the variability is a budget variability that does not affect the constituency; it will just impact the accuracy of ICANN budgeting by the staff.
Thanks Olga. If as Doug seems to suggest that the travel support must be allocated on a head count basis based on airfare and/or per diem, what happens if the total head count cannot be evenly divided across constituencies or stakeholder groups in the future? To use our current situation as an example, what happens if there are 10 full heads (airfare + per diem) funded for a given meeting; how would/could that be divided evenly across six constituencies? It seems to me that it is likely that we would end up with partial airfare and/or per diem for some individuals: 10 fully funded heads divided by 6 = 1.67 heads per constituency; it becomes even more complicated if some only get airfare and others only get per diem, The end result in most cases is the same: constituencies would get partial amounts for airfare and/or per diem, which it appears ICANN will not support. I hope I am not overly complicating this, but the proposal below combined with Doug's feedback does not seem to be feasible. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:26 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: [council] Travel policy draft and other comments Hi, In preparation for our conference call tomorrow, I am enclosing in this email the draft text prepared by the drafting team, which includes the suggestions made by Phillip and acceppted by some of us. There is also a brief summary of Doug Brent´s response in relation with the request of flexibility for fund allocation. There has not been a lot of feedback from constituencies to this text, so am not sure if we are ready yet to draft a motion. Looking forward to talking to you tomorrow. Regards Olga GNSO PRINCIPLES FOR ALLOCATION OF TRAVEL SUPPORT FUNDS FOR ICANN MEETING Allocation and Control: The total GNSO Travel support budget (less the amount allotted to the NCAs and GNSO Council chair) should be divided to the extent possible on an equal basis among the GNSO constituencies. The use of travel support funds is for travel to ICANN meetings, including regional, inter-sessional, and face-to-face working group meetings. 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. The GNSO Council has no role in deciding how these funds are allocated to individuals. 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. Highligts of the comments sent by Doug Brent: The current travel procedure talks about a certain number of people getting travel support for meetings (air and per diem). To add some flexibility at the cost of some additional tracking, ICANN can enable a split of that support; a certain number receiving air reimbursement and a certain number receiving per diem support (where these could be different people). To belabor the point for clarity, if before there were ten total people supported for air and per diem, now perhaps five could receive both air and per diem, five could receive air only, and five per diem only. Using this approach there will be a number of supported people, not a fund. Then, each constituency would be allocated some number of supported travelers. If we go by number of travelers, the variability is a budget variability that does not affect the constituency; it will just impact the accuracy of ICANN budgeting by the staff.
Olga you have done a great job to add sanity to madness. But as I , Stephane, others and most recently Chuck points out, the starting point of less than full Council member funding, creates a mess. Garbage in, Garbage out I fear. Lets remind the Board of this in our motion. Philip
Thanks Olga for compiling it. some proposals: 1-What about including a deadline or set of conditions beyond which these principles become derogated and a new ones have to be set ? With all the changes we are about to face, I think it's worth we set a self imposed review of the procedure, or even better, set the maximum duration of these princpiles. 2- I understand that if a constituency does not use the allocated budget, this is not lost, nor transferred to other constituencies, but saved. Is this right ? 3- following Chuck's question (1,67 heads per constituency), in case of non natural numbers dividing budget by people, I'd propose to round it down. Then, each constituency may add the amount they wish to fly as many people as constituency budget can support. 4- is there a limit on the number of total subsidized people ? That is, the limit seems to be the allocated budget, but is there a limit on that ? Or will GNSO ask for more and more money to fly for free more and more people each time ? I propose to set these limits. We are using registrants' money for that purpose and besides transparency we need to provide clear accountability and check and balance processes. Thanks jordi En/na Olga Cavalli ha escrit:
Hi, In preparation for our conference call tomorrow, I am enclosing in this email the draft text prepared by the drafting team, which includes the suggestions made by Phillip and acceppted by some of us. There is also a brief summary of Doug Brent´s response in relation with the request of flexibility for fund allocation. There has not been a lot of feedback from constituencies to this text, so am not sure if we are ready yet to draft a motion. Looking forward to talking to you tomorrow. Regards Olga
*_GNSO PRINCIPLES FOR ALLOCATION OF TRAVEL SUPPORT FUNDS FOR ICANN MEETING_*
Allocation and Control:
The total GNSO Travel support budget (less the amount allotted to the NCAs and GNSO Council chair) should be divided to the extent possible on an equal basis among the GNSO constituencies.
The use of travel support funds is for travel to ICANN meetings, including regional, inter-sessional, and face-to-face working group meetings.
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.
The GNSO Council has no role in deciding how these funds are allocated to individuals.
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.
*_Highligts of the comments sent by Doug Brent:_*
The current travel procedure talks about a certain number of people getting travel support for meetings (air and per diem). To add some flexibility at the cost of some additional tracking, ICANN can enable a split of that support; a certain number receiving air reimbursement and a certain number receiving per diem support (where these could be different people). To belabor the point for clarity, if before there were ten total people supported for air and per diem, now perhaps five could receive both air and per diem, five could receive air only, and five per diem only.
Using this approach there will be a number of supported people, not a fund.
Then, each constituency would be allocated some number of supported travelers.
If we go by number of travelers, the variability is a budget variability that does not affect the constituency; it will just impact the accuracy of ICANN budgeting by the staff.
-- Jordi Iparraguirre Fundació puntCAT www.domini.cat
The question I keep on asking myself is why do we have to complicate things even further? There was an initial proposal to allocate a set amount of money to each constituency. That makes it simple: each constituency gets the same and does with it what they want. Now we have this proposal to decide on a set number of people who will benefit from support instead. I understand from Doug's explanations that it might help simplify some budget issues, but as Chuck and Philip have pointed out, it also complicates other aspects of this whole thing for reasons which some of us might not have initially seen. That's fine. So if that's the case why not just stick with the "we have a total amount X for travel support for the GNSO and we divide that by the number of constituencies"? Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Le 18/12/08 11:09, « Jordi Iparraguirre » <ipa@domini.cat> a écrit :
Thanks Olga for compiling it.
some proposals:
1-What about including a deadline or set of conditions beyond which these principles become derogated and a new ones have to be set ? With all the changes we are about to face, I think it's worth we set a self imposed review of the procedure, or even better, set the maximum duration of these princpiles.
2- I understand that if a constituency does not use the allocated budget, this is not lost, nor transferred to other constituencies, but saved. Is this right ?
3- following Chuck's question (1,67 heads per constituency), in case of non natural numbers dividing budget by people, I'd propose to round it down. Then, each constituency may add the amount they wish to fly as many people as constituency budget can support.
4- is there a limit on the number of total subsidized people ? That is, the limit seems to be the allocated budget, but is there a limit on that ? Or will GNSO ask for more and more money to fly for free more and more people each time ?
I propose to set these limits. We are using registrants' money for that purpose and besides transparency we need to provide clear accountability and check and balance processes.
Thanks jordi
En/na Olga Cavalli ha escrit:
Hi, In preparation for our conference call tomorrow, I am enclosing in this email the draft text prepared by the drafting team, which includes the suggestions made by Phillip and acceppted by some of us. There is also a brief summary of Doug Brent´s response in relation with the request of flexibility for fund allocation. There has not been a lot of feedback from constituencies to this text, so am not sure if we are ready yet to draft a motion. Looking forward to talking to you tomorrow. Regards Olga
*_GNSO PRINCIPLES FOR ALLOCATION OF TRAVEL SUPPORT FUNDS FOR ICANN MEETING_*
Allocation and Control:
The total GNSO Travel support budget (less the amount allotted to the NCAs and GNSO Council chair) should be divided to the extent possible on an equal basis among the GNSO constituencies.
The use of travel support funds is for travel to ICANN meetings, including regional, inter-sessional, and face-to-face working group meetings.
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.
The GNSO Council has no role in deciding how these funds are allocated to individuals.
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.
*_Highligts of the comments sent by Doug Brent:_*
The current travel procedure talks about a certain number of people getting travel support for meetings (air and per diem). To add some flexibility at the cost of some additional tracking, ICANN can enable a split of that support; a certain number receiving air reimbursement and a certain number receiving per diem support (where these could be different people). To belabor the point for clarity, if before there were ten total people supported for air and per diem, now perhaps five could receive both air and per diem, five could receive air only, and five per diem only.
Using this approach there will be a number of supported people, not a fund.
Then, each constituency would be allocated some number of supported travelers.
If we go by number of travelers, the variability is a budget variability that does not affect the constituency; it will just impact the accuracy of ICANN budgeting by the staff.
Stephane wrote: So if that's the case why not just stick with the "we have a total amount X for travel support for the GNSO and we divide that by the number of constituencies"? I agree 100%. Philip
We probably should confirm with Doug whether Staff will handle it that way if it does not come out to even head counts for airfare and/or per diem per constiutency? Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 8:58 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] Travel policy draft and other comments Stephane wrote: So if that's the case why not just stick with the "we have a total amount X for travel support for the GNSO and we divide that by the number of constituencies"? I agree 100%. Philip
A principle that I learned as a manager many years ago is this: don't make decisions that have negative consequences if the only reason is for administrative convenience. Frankly, it seems to me that that is what ICANN staff members are doing on this issue. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 8:51 AM To: Jordi Iparraguirre; 'Council GNSO' Subject: Re: [council] Travel policy draft and other comments
The question I keep on asking myself is why do we have to complicate things even further?
There was an initial proposal to allocate a set amount of money to each constituency. That makes it simple: each constituency gets the same and does with it what they want.
Now we have this proposal to decide on a set number of people who will benefit from support instead. I understand from Doug's explanations that it might help simplify some budget issues, but as Chuck and Philip have pointed out, it also complicates other aspects of this whole thing for reasons which some of us might not have initially seen.
That's fine. So if that's the case why not just stick with the "we have a total amount X for travel support for the GNSO and we divide that by the number of constituencies"?
Thanks,
Stéphane Van Gelder
Le 18/12/08 11:09, « Jordi Iparraguirre » <ipa@domini.cat> a écrit :
Thanks Olga for compiling it.
some proposals:
1-What about including a deadline or set of conditions beyond which these principles become derogated and a new ones have to be set ? With all the changes we are about to face, I think it's
worth we set a
self imposed review of the procedure, or even better, set the maximum duration of these princpiles.
2- I understand that if a constituency does not use the allocated budget, this is not lost, nor transferred to other constituencies, but saved. Is this right ?
3- following Chuck's question (1,67 heads per constituency), in case of non natural numbers dividing budget by people, I'd propose to round it down. Then, each constituency may add the amount they wish to fly as many people as constituency budget can support.
4- is there a limit on the number of total subsidized people ? That is, the limit seems to be the allocated budget, but is there a limit on that ? Or will GNSO ask for more and more money to fly for free more and more people each time ?
I propose to set these limits. We are using registrants' money for that purpose and besides transparency we need to provide clear accountability and check and balance processes.
Thanks jordi
En/na Olga Cavalli ha escrit:
Hi, In preparation for our conference call tomorrow, I am enclosing in this email the draft text prepared by the drafting team, which includes the suggestions made by Phillip and acceppted by
some of us.
There is also a brief summary of Doug Brent´s response in relation with the request of flexibility for fund allocation. There has not been a lot of feedback from constituencies to this text, so am not sure if we are ready yet to draft a motion. Looking forward to talking to you tomorrow. Regards Olga
*_GNSO PRINCIPLES FOR ALLOCATION OF TRAVEL SUPPORT FUNDS FOR ICANN MEETING_*
Allocation and Control:
The total GNSO Travel support budget (less the amount allotted to the NCAs and GNSO Council chair) should be divided to the extent possible on an equal basis among the GNSO constituencies.
The use of travel support funds is for travel to ICANN meetings, including regional, inter-sessional, and face-to-face working group meetings.
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.
The GNSO Council has no role in deciding how these funds are allocated to individuals.
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.
*_Highligts of the comments sent by Doug Brent:_*
The current travel procedure talks about a certain number of people getting travel support for meetings (air and per diem). To add some flexibility at the cost of some additional tracking, ICANN can enable a split of that support; a certain number receiving air reimbursement and a certain number receiving per diem support (where these could be different people). To belabor the point for clarity, if before there were ten total people supported for air and per diem, now perhaps five could receive both air and per diem, five could receive air only, and five per diem only.
Using this approach there will be a number of supported people, not a fund.
Then, each constituency would be allocated some number of supported travelers.
If we go by number of travelers, the variability is a budget variability that does not affect the constituency; it will just impact the accuracy of ICANN budgeting by the staff.
Alternate motion for travel. Proposed Philip Stephane - would you second ? -------------------------------------------- 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 will thus detract from the total budget available if some budget will be needed to cover staff administration costs. 2. Council calls upon ICANN staff to nominate a fixed sum in 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.
Thank you Philip. I would second such a motion. May I suggest that we simplify things and leave out the first paragraph? May I suggest adding a date in the second paragraph, i.e. staff must nominate a fixed sum by mid Jan (just an example, I have no idea if that date is feasible)? This so that we move forward long enough before the first ICANN meeting of 2009 so that both staff and constituencies have the time to make their arrangements. Thanks, Stéphane Le 18/12/08 15:16, « Philip Sheppard » <philip.sheppard@aim.be> a écrit :
Alternate motion for travel. Proposed Philip Stephane - would you second ? --------------------------------------------
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 will thus detract from the total budget available if some budget will be needed to cover staff administration costs.
2. Council calls upon ICANN staff to nominate a fixed sum in 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.
participants (5)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
Jordi Iparraguirre -
Olga Cavalli -
Philip Sheppard -
Stéphane Van Gelder