Comments in relation with GNSO travel funding and policy
Hi, The Travel Drafting Team met with ICANN Staff in México ( Kevin Wilson, Doug Brent and Stacy Hoffberg). What we agreed during the meeting was that GNSO would prepare a document with those ideas and requirements that GNSO has in relation with travel funding and travel policy. They expressed that this information could be very useful for them. The drafted text is included in this email for your revision. Your comments are welcome, then we will submit it to the ICANN staff members that were present in the meeting. Best regards Olga *Comments about GNSO Travel funding and travel policy* All GNSO council members should be founded to attend ICANN meetings. All council members volunteer their time and the GNSO amount of work is a lot. The amount of work in GNSO is highly increasing due to the GNSO restructuring and the different steering committees and working groups that council member´s participate in. GNSO must undergo restructuring and this enormous task is unbudgeted and no additional resource is allocated for this purpose. Hence, extended travel funding especially in this period is required. If there is additional work, then there is a need for additional funding resources. The workload of the GNSO is, at least in these times, enormous and it would be unrealistic for the structures to work by volunteers being stretched beyond limits especially without travel support. This support may include WG and DT members as the Constituencies may nominate. It could be good if constituencies receive the travel funds and they distribute these funds among their members with flexibility. The budgeted amount for GNSO should be monetized and divided equally between Constituencies (possibly SGs if there is a proliferation of Constituencies). Constituency allocation should be transparent but at the discretion of the Constituency. If in one Financial Year a Constituency does not utilize and saves its allocation, that allocation should be reserved and rolled over into travel reserves for the next FY in addition to the budget allocation for the next. A growth in the active participation of ALL GNSO Councilors in ICANN meetings may enhance the face to face work of GNSO making it more efficient and also it may also benefit the work on teleconference meetings. It may also benefit the participation by a broader spectrum of the GNSO community. Travel funding should not impact registrar or registry fees. According to the proposed budget documents, ICANN expects revenues that will be $13 million "in excess" of ICANN's budget for FY10. A rough estimate of the extra cost of funding all councilors' funding for next year is $200K. It could be useful to know a detailed breakdown of the GNSO travel support budget. Also it could help knowing the travel support provided to the GNSO today and the monetary amount of travel support for ALL GNSO Councilors.
My apologies for the delay in submitting some comments. My personal comments are below. I will provide any additional comments from the RyC later, if any. I should qualify my comments by pointing out the RyC's position has consistently been that travel funding should be provided within budget limitations for those who are active participants, not just Councilors, who otherwise would not be able to participate in-person. That said, I recognize that the majority of the Council has a different view about that and hence, in response to the majority view, I submit my personal comments. There are two general themes behind my suggested edits: 1) Travel funding should not be restricted to Councilor, a view that I believe is consistent with the DT's position; 2) recommendations for travel funding beyond Sydney should be worded in a way that is consistent with the new bicameral model and therefore should focus on stakeholder groups, not constituencies. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 9:51 PM To: GNSO Council Cc: Olga Cavalli; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: [council] Comments in relation with GNSO travel funding and policy Hi, The Travel Drafting Team met with ICANN Staff in México ( Kevin Wilson, Doug Brent and Stacy Hoffberg). What we agreed during the meeting was that GNSO would prepare a document with those ideas and requirements that GNSO has in relation with travel funding and travel policy. They expressed that this information could be very useful for them. The drafted text is included in this email for your revision. Your comments are welcome, then we will submit it to the ICANN staff members that were present in the meeting. Best regards Olga Comments about GNSO Travel funding and travel policy All GNSO council members should be founded to attend ICANN meetings.[Gomes, Chuck] Minor edit: change 'founded' to 'funded'. I would also suggest that this be changed to something like the following: "Travel funding should be provided for GNSO participants sufficient to cover full travel costs for the total number of GNSO Council members." I believe the rewording provides more flexibility for Stakeholder Groups to allocate travel funds to SG participants whether they be Councilors or WG members or others who are active in GNSO activities and this is consistent with other recommendations below. All council members volunteer their time and the GNSO amount of work is a lot.[Gomes, Chuck] Note that it is not just Councilors who volunteer their time. And others besides Councilors volunteer significant time (e.g., WG chairs, WG members, etc.), so I would change 'council members' to 'GNSO participants'. The amount of work in GNSO is highly increasing due to the GNSO restructuring and the different steering committees and working groups that council member´s participate in.[Gomes, Chuck] Again, I would change 'council members' to 'GNSO participants'. GNSO must undergo restructuring and this enormous task is unbudgeted and no additional resource is allocated for this purpose. Hence, extended travel funding especially in this period is required. If there is additional work, then there is a need for additional funding resources. The workload of the GNSO is, at least in these times, enormous and it would be unrealistic for the structures to work by volunteers being stretched beyond limits especially without travel support. This support may include WG and DT members as the Constituencies may nominate. It could be good if constituencies receive the travel funds and they distribute these funds among their members with flexibility.[Gomes, Chuck] Looking forward, I think we should change 'constituencies' to 'stakeholder groups'. The budgeted amount for GNSO should be monetized and divided equally between Constituencies (possibly SGs if there is a proliferation of Constituencies).[Gomes, Chuck] The way this is worded, it result in a stakeholder group with lots of constituencies getting most of the funds while those with few constituencies receiving few funds. In other words, it would be possible for a bunch of small constituencies to receive more travel funding than a large constituency that may represent many more stakeholders than the group of small constituencies. I suspect that that was not the intent, so I suggest changing 'Constituencies' to 'stakeholder groups'. Constituency allocation should be transparent but at the discretion of the Constituency.[Gomes, Chuck] I would change 'Constituency' in both cases to 'stakeholder group'. If in one Financial Year a Constituency does not utilize and saves its allocation, that allocation should be reserved and rolled over into travel reserves for the next FY in addition to the budget allocation for the next.[Gomes, Chuck] I would change 'Constituency' to 'stakeholder group'. A growth in the active participation of ALL GNSO Councilors in ICANN meetings may enhance the face to face work of GNSO making it more efficient and also it may also benefit the work on teleconference meetings.[Gomes, Chuck] I suggest changing 'ALL GNSO Councilors in ICANN meetings' to 'ALL GNSO Councilors and other GNSO participants in ICANN meetings and other GNSO in-person activities'. It may also benefit the participation by a broader spectrum of the GNSO community. Travel funding should not impact registrar or registry fees. According to the proposed budget documents, ICANN expects revenues that will be $13 million "in excess" of ICANN's budget for FY10.[Gomes, Chuck ] Does this ignore contributions to a reserve fund? If so, maybe it should be reconsidered or reworded. A rough estimate of the extra cost of funding all councilors' funding for next year is $200K.[Gomes, Chuck] I would change 'all councilors' funding' to 'funding for the equivalent of all Councilors'. It could be useful to know a detailed breakdown of the GNSO travel support budget. Also it could help knowing the travel support provided to the GNSO today and the monetary amount of travel support for ALL GNSO Councilors.[Gomes, Chuck] I suggest replacing 'ALL GNSO Councilors' with 'the equivalent of all GNSO Councilors'.
The BC profoundly objects to the proposed change of "constituencies" to "stakeholder groups" suggested by the RyC. Any new constituency must be approved by the Board. It is therefore legitimate. It therefore deserves equitable treatment. Philip
Hi, I would tend to agree with this. Constituencies are, as I understand them within the new structure, the basic way participants engaged in policy making are organized. It is being a constituency that gives an organized group of people with a common interest a formal voice in policy making. The Stakeholder groups based on the other hand are based on an sector organizational principle for allowing the constituencies from one of 4 sectors to manage the process and provide a mechanism to allow for the formation of new constituencies without having to constantly change the balance of representation/votes in the council. Since SG are organized along sector lines, it is quite possible for constituencies within a sector to be unaligned and in disagreement with each other. As long as we are working on a model of funding where the participants within a group are forced to discriminate on how that money will be spent, then that basic grouping has to be the constituency. Otherwise a strong constituency within a SG could refuse to allow a weaker constituency to travel thus stifling their legitimate Board given voice. Note: In saying this I repeat my minority opinion again that ICANN should be providing travel on the Board level standards for all council members. But this is not the position taken by the DT or council, so it remains a minority view. In the spirit of announcing how we intend to vote in advance, I will probably abstain since I strongly believe this and am currently the only council member, by virtue of being chair, being given what I consider the proper treatment all council members should be given. I think this will be even more the case when we move to the SG model as then the council reps will be chosen to serve the will of the SG and not interests of their constituency. a. On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 16:12 +0100, Philip Sheppard wrote:
The BC profoundly objects to the proposed change of "constituencies" to "stakeholder groups" suggested by the RyC.
Any new constituency must be approved by the Board. It is therefore legitimate. It therefore deserves equitable treatment.
Philip
Avri, Please explain to me what you agree with. I didn't understand Philip's point so I obviously do not understand yours. Please note my responses below. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 11:53 AM To: 'GNSO Council' Subject: RE: [council] Comments in relation with GNSO travel funding and policy
Hi,
I would tend to agree with this.
Constituencies are, as I understand them within the new structure, the basic way participants engaged in policy making are organized. It is being a constituency that gives an organized group of people with a common interest a formal voice in policy making.
No disagreement here. Constituences are by definition components of SGs so they are included.
The Stakeholder groups based on the other hand are based on an sector organizational principle for allowing the constituencies from one of 4 sectors to manage the process and provide a mechanism to allow for the formation of new constituencies without having to constantly change the balance of representation/votes in the council. Since SG are organized along sector lines, it is quite possible for constituencies within a sector to be unaligned and in disagreement with each other.
So what? That is the case now. We regularly have disagreement in the Council and we regularly have disagreement within our constituencies. That is why work toward consensus or at least rough consensus.
As long as we are working on a model of funding where the participants within a group are forced to discriminate on how that money will be spent, then that basic grouping has to be the constituency. Otherwise a strong constituency within a SG could refuse to allow a weaker constituency to travel thus stifling their legitimate Board given voice.
SG charters should be disigned to deal with this.
Note: In saying this I repeat my minority opinion again that ICANN should be providing travel on the Board level standards for all council members. But this is not the position taken by the DT or council, so it remains a minority view. In the spirit of announcing how we intend to vote in advance, I will probably abstain since I strongly believe this and am currently the only council member, by virtue of being chair, being given what I consider the proper treatment all council members should be given. I think this will be even more the case when we move to the SG model as then the council reps will be chosen to serve the will of the SG and not interests of their constituency.
a.
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 16:12 +0100, Philip Sheppard wrote:
The BC profoundly objects to the proposed change of "constituencies" to "stakeholder groups" suggested by the RyC.
Any new constituency must be approved by the Board. It is therefore legitimate. It therefore deserves equitable treatment.
Philip
Hi I apologize for not being clear. The point I agree with, assuming I do not misunderstand the point that was being made, is that as long as we are responding to an ICANN policy that forces discrimination through an unnecessary shortage in travel funding, and as long as we are saying that groups can send anyone they want and not just council members, then the basic unit of funding apportionment must be the constituency. a. On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 12:10 -0400, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Avri,
Please explain to me what you agree with. I didn't understand Philip's point so I obviously do not understand yours. Please note my responses below.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 11:53 AM To: 'GNSO Council' Subject: RE: [council] Comments in relation with GNSO travel funding and policy
Hi,
I would tend to agree with this.
Constituencies are, as I understand them within the new structure, the basic way participants engaged in policy making are organized. It is being a constituency that gives an organized group of people with a common interest a formal voice in policy making.
No disagreement here. Constituences are by definition components of SGs so they are included.
The Stakeholder groups based on the other hand are based on an sector organizational principle for allowing the constituencies from one of 4 sectors to manage the process and provide a mechanism to allow for the formation of new constituencies without having to constantly change the balance of representation/votes in the council. Since SG are organized along sector lines, it is quite possible for constituencies within a sector to be unaligned and in disagreement with each other.
So what? That is the case now. We regularly have disagreement in the Council and we regularly have disagreement within our constituencies. That is why work toward consensus or at least rough consensus.
As long as we are working on a model of funding where the participants within a group are forced to discriminate on how that money will be spent, then that basic grouping has to be the constituency. Otherwise a strong constituency within a SG could refuse to allow a weaker constituency to travel thus stifling their legitimate Board given voice.
SG charters should be disigned to deal with this.
Note: In saying this I repeat my minority opinion again that ICANN should be providing travel on the Board level standards for all council members. But this is not the position taken by the DT or council, so it remains a minority view. In the spirit of announcing how we intend to vote in advance, I will probably abstain since I strongly believe this and am currently the only council member, by virtue of being chair, being given what I consider the proper treatment all council members should be given. I think this will be even more the case when we move to the SG model as then the council reps will be chosen to serve the will of the SG and not interests of their constituency.
a.
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 16:12 +0100, Philip Sheppard wrote:
The BC profoundly objects to the proposed change of "constituencies" to "stakeholder groups" suggested by the RyC.
Any new constituency must be approved by the Board. It is therefore legitimate. It therefore deserves equitable treatment.
Philip
Thanks Avri. If we use the constituency as the basic unit of funding apportionment, would it then be the Council's role to decide how to do that fairly? That sounds like a huge challenge to me. What does it mean to treat constituencies equitably? Does every constituency get treated the same way in apportioning funds regardless of their size or representativeness or activity? What if there are a small number of constituencies in one House and a large number of constituencies in the other house? Is it your opinion that the travel funds should be distributed equally among constituencies so that one House would receive a lot more funding? In the case of the Travel DT recommendations for which I provided some suggested edits, the intent as I read it was to request funding that would at least cover costs for all Councilors if constituencies decided to use it for Councilors. Councilors are selected at the SG level and may or may not correlate with constituencies, so I don't see how it would work. Finally, in my opinion I think these issues are best handled by each SG rather than by the Council or present constituencies. Thanks for the dialog. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 12:23 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] Comments in relation with GNSO travel funding and policy
Hi
I apologize for not being clear.
The point I agree with, assuming I do not misunderstand the point that was being made, is that as long as we are responding to an ICANN policy that forces discrimination through an unnecessary shortage in travel funding, and as long as we are saying that groups can send anyone they want and not just council members, then the basic unit of funding apportionment must be the constituency.
a.
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 12:10 -0400, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Avri,
Please explain to me what you agree with. I didn't understand Philip's point so I obviously do not understand yours. Please note my responses below.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 11:53 AM To: 'GNSO Council' Subject: RE: [council] Comments in relation with GNSO travel funding and policy
Hi,
I would tend to agree with this.
Constituencies are, as I understand them within the new structure, the basic way participants engaged in policy making are organized. It is being a constituency that gives an organized group of people with a common interest a formal voice in policy making.
No disagreement here. Constituences are by definition components of SGs so they are included.
The Stakeholder groups based on the other hand are based on an sector organizational principle for allowing the
constituencies from
one of 4 sectors to manage the process and provide a mechanism to allow for the formation of new constituencies without having to constantly change the balance of representation/votes in the council. Since SG are organized along sector lines, it is quite possible for constituencies within a sector to be unaligned and in disagreement with each other.
So what? That is the case now. We regularly have disagreement in the Council and we regularly have disagreement within our constituencies. That is why work toward consensus or at least rough consensus.
As long as we are working on a model of funding where the participants within a group are forced to discriminate on
how that
money will be spent, then that basic grouping has to be the constituency. Otherwise a strong constituency within a SG could refuse to allow a weaker constituency to travel thus stifling their legitimate Board given voice.
SG charters should be disigned to deal with this.
Note: In saying this I repeat my minority opinion again
that ICANN
should be providing travel on the Board level standards for all council members. But this is not the position taken by the DT or council, so it remains a minority view. In the spirit of announcing how we intend to vote in advance, I will probably abstain since I strongly believe this and am currently the only council member, by virtue of being chair, being given what I consider the proper treatment all council members should be given. I think this will be even more the case when we move to the SG model as then the council reps will be chosen to serve the will of the SG and not interests of their constituency.
a.
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 16:12 +0100, Philip Sheppard wrote:
The BC profoundly objects to the proposed change of "constituencies" to "stakeholder groups" suggested by the RyC.
Any new constituency must be approved by the Board. It is therefore legitimate. It therefore deserves equitable treatment.
Philip
On 27 Mar 2009, at 14:50, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks Avri.
If we use the constituency as the basic unit of funding apportionment, would it then be the Council's role to decide how to do that fairly?
No, it can be done by formula: total funding provided by ICANN divided by the number of constituencies
That sounds like a huge challenge to me. What does it mean to treat constituencies equitably? Does every constituency get treated the same way in apportioning funds regardless of their size or representativeness or activity?
Yes. _All constituencies created by the Board are created equal. _ I believe that is one of two critical principles behind having constituencies be Board created as opposed to SG created. (The other involves avoiding the appearance/reality of incumbent prejudice in the creation of new constituencies.)
What if there are a small number of constituencies in one House and a large number of constituencies in the other house? Is it your opinion that the travel funds should be distributed equally among constituencies so that one House would receive a lot more funding?
As long as the funding is being used for participation in the work of the GNSO as opposed to just the funding of the council members this has to be the guiding principle in my view. To do otherwise is to support the voice of one constituency more then the voice of the other constituencies. i.e the constituency in the SG group with one constituency will be able to send more of its people then the constituency in the SG with many constituencies. Again I go back to my understanding of the difference between constituencies and SG groups. Constituencies are there to provide an organized group of like minded people with a voice and the ability to participate fully in the creation of gTLD policy. SG are sector oriented and , at least theoretically, composed of many constituency with different priorities with the purpose of providing management of the policy process. If the idea was just to fund council participation by council members then dividing it along SG lines could make sense. And if the budget was limited, then yes, i believe it would make sense for the SG to decide which of its council members would be allowed to attend the meetings at registrant expense. But the idea we have embraced as a council is that the monies are to be used in any way the constituency thinks best to support its work and its voice. As a consequence of this the monies need, in my opinion, to be the equally distributed among constituencies. a.
Totally disagree with you Avri on this: "All constituencies created by the Board are created equal." And I believe it is inconsistent with the Board recommendations because they explicitly emphasize that constituencies must be representative of the group they claim to represent and even recommend procedures to demonstrate that on a regular basis. Of course I along with the RyC are opposed to the entitlement mentality as well. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 3:20 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Comments in relation with GNSO travel funding and policy
On 27 Mar 2009, at 14:50, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks Avri.
If we use the constituency as the basic unit of funding apportionment, would it then be the Council's role to decide how to do that fairly?
No, it can be done by formula:
total funding provided by ICANN divided by the number of constituencies
That sounds like a huge challenge to me. What does it mean
to treat
constituencies equitably? Does every constituency get treated the same way in apportioning funds regardless of their size or representativeness or activity?
Yes.
_All constituencies created by the Board are created equal. _
I believe that is one of two critical principles behind having constituencies be Board created as opposed to SG created. (The other involves avoiding the appearance/reality of incumbent prejudice in the creation of new constituencies.)
What if there are a small number of constituencies in one House and a large number of constituencies in the other house? Is it your opinion that the travel funds should be distributed equally among constituencies so that one House would receive a lot more funding?
As long as the funding is being used for participation in the work of the GNSO as opposed to just the funding of the council members this has to be the guiding principle in my view. To do otherwise is to support the voice of one constituency more then the voice of the other constituencies. i.e the constituency in the SG group with one constituency will be able to send more of its people then the constituency in the SG with many constituencies.
Again I go back to my understanding of the difference between constituencies and SG groups. Constituencies are there to provide an organized group of like minded people with a voice and the ability to participate fully in the creation of gTLD policy. SG are sector oriented and , at least theoretically, composed of many constituency with different priorities with the purpose of providing management of the policy process.
If the idea was just to fund council participation by council members then dividing it along SG lines could make sense. And if the budget was limited, then yes, i believe it would make sense for the SG to decide which of its council members would be allowed to attend the meetings at registrant expense.
But the idea we have embraced as a council is that the monies are to be used in any way the constituency thinks best to support its work and its voice. As a consequence of this the monies need, in my opinion, to be the equally distributed among constituencies.
a.
Philip, First of all the suggestion was personal and not from the RyC as I stated. Secondly, I don't have a clue as to why you object. Please explain. I don't think there was any of my edits that that suggested that constituencies should not receive equitable treatment. If there is, I would agree that it needs to be fixed. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 11:13 AM To: 'GNSO Council' Subject: RE: [council] Comments in relation with GNSO travel funding and policy The BC profoundly objects to the proposed change of "constituencies" to "stakeholder groups" suggested by the RyC. Any new constituency must be approved by the Board. It is therefore legitimate. It therefore deserves equitable treatment. Philip
Chuck, it was these proposed edits by you that sent a shudder down my spine. I must go and recuperate immediately ...TGIF. Philip -------------------------- It could be good if constituencies receive the travel funds and they distribute these funds among their members with flexibility.[Gomes, Chuck] Looking forward, I think we should change 'constituencies' to 'stakeholder groups'. The budgeted amount for GNSO should be monetized and divided equally between Constituencies (possibly SGs if there is a proliferation of Constituencies).[Gomes, Chuck] The way this is worded, it result in a stakeholder group with lots of constituencies getting most of the funds while those with few constituencies receiving few funds. In other words, it would be possible for a bunch of small constituencies to receive more travel funding than a large constituency that may represent many more stakeholders than the group of small constituencies. I suspect that that was not the intent, so I suggest changing 'Constituencies' to 'stakeholder groups'. Constituency allocation should be transparent but at the discretion of the Constituency.[Gomes, Chuck] I would change 'Constituency' in both cases to 'stakeholder group'.
Why? Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 12:22 PM To: 'GNSO Council' Subject: RE: [council] Comments in relation with GNSO travel funding and policy Chuck, it was these proposed edits by you that sent a shudder down my spine. I must go and recuperate immediately ...TGIF. Philip -------------------------- It could be good if constituencies receive the travel funds and they distribute these funds among their members with flexibility.[Gomes, Chuck] Looking forward, I think we should change 'constituencies' to 'stakeholder groups'. The budgeted amount for GNSO should be monetized and divided equally between Constituencies (possibly SGs if there is a proliferation of Constituencies).[Gomes, Chuck] The way this is worded, it result in a stakeholder group with lots of constituencies getting most of the funds while those with few constituencies receiving few funds. In other words, it would be possible for a bunch of small constituencies to receive more travel funding than a large constituency that may represent many more stakeholders than the group of small constituencies. I suspect that that was not the intent, so I suggest changing 'Constituencies' to 'stakeholder groups'. Constituency allocation should be transparent but at the discretion of the Constituency.[Gomes, Chuck] I would change 'Constituency' in both cases to 'stakeholder group'.
participants (4)
-
Avri Doria -
Gomes, Chuck -
Olga Cavalli -
Philip Sheppard