Right, I think the Travel DT may want to reconsider the statement we drafted, giving it more time and thought since it seems clear to me there are other views I don't think we've considered. But more immediate is the need to keep moving foward on the funding for Sydney. The DT should focus on that for now. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Comments in relation with GNSO travel funding and policy From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Fri, March 27, 2009 2:00 pm To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>, <council@gnso.icann.org> If the fact that we are moving to a working group model is Philip's concern, then maybe in doesn't make sense to focus on funding Councilors. In my edits I was simply trying to stay with that approach. Chuck

-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 12:15 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Comments in relation with GNSO travel funding and policy

Tim, it would be in yesterday's Council but in tomorrow's Council with working groups representing all constituencies it does not work.

Personally I'd be happy with yesterday's Council. Alas the new woprld dictates new obligations. Philip

------------------ Tim wrote: Philip,

I didn't take Chuck's comments to mean constituencies were not legitimate, or shouldn't have equitable treatment. And that certainly isn't the DT's intent.

What we were trying to get to is that the amount of funding should be based on the number of councilors. So under the bicameral model, if a stakeholder group has six councillors they get enough travel funding for six participants. How those funds are divided up within the stakeholder group should be left to them (it all goes for the councilors, evenly distributed to the constituencies, etc.).

Is that acceptable in your view?

Tim