Dear Donna, Thank you for opening up this conversation. I noticed that you highlighted the following sentence: "We believe ICANN should continue to provide targeted funding to support and appropriately retain volunteers who are productive contributors in ICANN activities." And appended the following comment: "I do have some concerns with this statement. I don’t think there should be an expectation of ongoing financial support over an extended period of time." I consider the sentence above to be reasonable and narrow in scope, though I would be open to changing "ICANN activities" to "GNSO Council activities" if that would allow us to move forward. Thank you, Ayden Férdeline

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] [EXTERNAL] Re: Community travel support consultation - draft of proposed response Local Time: 17 November 2017 11:42 PM UTC Time: 17 November 2017 23:42 From: council@gnso.icann.org To: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com>, Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina@gmail.com> gnso-secs@icann.org <gnso-secs@icann.org>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>

Erika, all

I have a fundamental problem with the Council calling out any program or recipients of any ICANN funded travel for special scrutiny in our comments. I could provide a long-list of problems that I have with certain groups that receive travel funding that go beyond those that are listed. If individual SGs and Cs want to make such comments they are free to do so, but I do not think it is the Council’s place to do so.

I think ICANN is headed down a good path in reviewing the Travel Guidelines and we should be supportive of that. A more reasonable approach at this time might be to make some high level observations.

I have made some changes to the doc to include more detail about Council travel support initiatives.

Donna

From: council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Erika Mann Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 12:13 PM To: Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org; GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] Community travel support consultation - draft of proposed response

Tatiana, Michele, Ayden -

Thanks for the work!

How about mentioning that there's concern that the Fellowship Program is not sufficiently focusing on ICANN issues? I made a recommendation below. If you don't like it, change it or don't include it. Both is fine with me.

Cheers,

Erika

You are welcome to append any general comments on the community resource consultation

We would like to point out that the document contains no questions related to such programs as the ICANN fellowship, NextGen@ICANN, and pilot communityonboarding program. ICANN travel reports show that many of the travelers who ICANN supports with travel funding participate in these programs. The costs of these programs for ICANN are quite high compared to AC/SO travel expenses. The value and effectiveness of these programs are, however, unclear to many of the community members.

EM - recommendation to add: "There's growing concern that the program is not sufficiently focusing on ICANN matters."

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 17, 2017, at 5:50 PM, Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Dear all,

Michele, Ayden and I reviewed the Community Travel Support Consultation Questionnaire and drafted a proposed response from the GNSO Council perspective. Please find the document attached.

The deadline for submission of this response is actually today, but we asked for a few days of extension. If you could review the document and provide your feedback until Monday COB (whatever timezone COB is for you), it would be greatly appreciated. If you need more time - please let me (us) know. Thanks!

Cheers,

Tanya

...

<Community Travel Support Consultation 17 Nov 2017.docx>

...

_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org [https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_council&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=SjLt_JEknc4Hsv61oBDa4Yeu-DSBpe2p3GEbf_YiXlg&s=5O3Fw8AVFkd8tNwzGICtM3RoTZ0lYhvXQ4nEOE13vaU&e=)

Donna, All - I'm in agreement with your approach. As Michele recommended in his last email, we can search for a different approach in expressing our concern concerning certain aspects of the Fellowship program. Kind regards, Erika Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 18, 2017, at 12:42 AM, Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar> wrote:

Erika, all

I have a fundamental problem with the Council calling out any program or recipients of any ICANN funded travel for special scrutiny in our comments. I could provide a long-list of problems that I have with certain groups that receive travel funding that go beyond those that are listed. If individual SGs and Cs want to make such comments they are free to do so, but I do not think it is the Council’s place to do so.

I think ICANN is headed down a good path in reviewing the Travel Guidelines and we should be supportive of that. A more reasonable approach at this time might be to make some high level observations.

I have made some changes to the doc to include more detail about Council travel support initiatives.

Donna

From: council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Erika Mann Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 12:13 PM To: Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org; GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] Community travel support consultation - draft of proposed response

Tatiana, Michele, Ayden -

Thanks for the work!

How about mentioning that there's concern that the Fellowship Program is not sufficiently focusing on ICANN issues? I made a recommendation below. If you don't like it, change it or don't include it. Both is fine with me.

Cheers, Erika

You are welcome to append any general comments on the community resource consultation We would like to point out that the document contains no questions related to such programs as the ICANN fellowship, NextGen@ICANN, and pilot communityonboarding program. ICANN travel reports show that many of the travelers who ICANN supports with travel funding participate in these programs. The costs of these programs for ICANN are quite high compared to AC/SO travel expenses. The value and effectiveness of these programs are, however, unclear to many of the community members.

EM - recommendation to add: "There's growing concern that the program is not sufficiently focusing on ICANN matters."

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 17, 2017, at 5:50 PM, Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear all,

Michele, Ayden and I reviewed the Community Travel Support Consultation Questionnaire and drafted a proposed response from the GNSO Council perspective. Please find the document attached.

The deadline for submission of this response is actually today, but we asked for a few days of extension. If you could review the document and provide your feedback until Monday COB (whatever timezone COB is for you), it would be greatly appreciated. If you need more time - please let me (us) know. Thanks!

Cheers, Tanya <Community Travel Support Consultation 17 Nov 2017.docx> _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council <Community Travel Support Consultation 17 Nov 2017_DA.docx>

Good morning! I have read the questionnaire again. I think that the questionnaire is asking questions about our own SO (only). While I think the comment is interesting, I do agree with Donna that is falls outside of the Questionnaires realm. So in good ICANN Style, If somebody wants to write a high level "rationale" about ICANN travel support policy, it make sense to add it in the email remitting the GNSO answers to the questionnaire. But in my view, it does not answer any of the questions. My two cents Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez ISOC Costa Rica Chapter skype carlos.raulg +506 8837 7176 ________ Apartado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 5:03 AM, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> wrote:

Erika,

...

How about mentioning that there's concern that the Fellowship Program is not sufficiently focusing on ICANN issues? I made a recommendation below. If you don't like it, change it or don't include it. Both is fine with me.

I think it is a good addition.

Julf

_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

All As one of those who drafted the comments with Tatiana I am happy to stand over them, however I fully accept what Donna is saying. So maybe the path forward is to do the following: 1 – a submission from the GNSO Council taking into consideration Donna’s suggestions, without getting into the quagmire of some of the programs. This would keep within the scope of the GNSO Council’s views on this hopefully. 2 – Those of us who feel strongly that comments should be submitted regarding certain aspects of the travel support program do so separately ie. not as a submission by Council, but as community members who wish to express their opinion. Of course there is also the option of submissions via our respective stakeholder groups etc., though I’m not sure if that will really work for everyone. Just a suggestion. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ https://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265, Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina@gmail.com> Date: Saturday 18 November 2017 at 13:04 To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg@isoc-cr.org> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Community travel support consultation - draft of proposed response Hi Carlos and all, Thanks a lot for your comments. if we follow your logic it means that only those who are responsible for the fellowship and NextGen programs are able to comment on its effectiveness, although fellowship is supposed to be beneficial for the entire community and should be assessed by the community. I asked on the GNSO call when the questionnaire was presented why it missed questions about the fellowship and NextGen (as these programs have a large share in the ICANN travel budget) and whether this would be added at the later stage. I was told that we can add our comments on this at the end of the questionnaire as general remarks. I believe there are a lot of concerns about these programs. I see that we have no consensus as to whether we can comment on this, but I do think it's worth to raise these concerns and that we as a GNSO council are in a position to do so. This is what "general remarks" section is for, in my opinion. So I am apparently with the drafting team and with Erika and Julf here that instead of deleting the paragraph about these programs, we might even add more there, e.g. highlight that they are not ICANN focused enough. Warm regards, Tanya On 18 November 2017 at 13:32, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg@isoc-cr.org<mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org>> wrote: Good morning! I have read the questionnaire again. I think that the questionnaire is asking questions about our own SO (only). While I think the comment is interesting, I do agree with Donna that is falls outside of the Questionnaires realm. So in good ICANN Style, If somebody wants to write a high level "rationale" about ICANN travel support policy, it make sense to add it in the email remitting the GNSO answers to the questionnaire. But in my view, it does not answer any of the questions. My two cents Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez ISOC Costa Rica Chapter skype carlos.raulg +506 8837 7176<tel:+506%208837%207176> ________ Apartado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 5:03 AM, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>> wrote: Erika,

How about mentioning that there's concern that the Fellowship Program is not sufficiently focusing on ICANN issues? I made a recommendation below. If you don't like it, change it or don't include it. Both is fine with me.

I think it is a good addition. Julf _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

Thanks all. In the spirit of cooperation and moving forward, I would be happy to lend my support to the suggestion that the Council, in our response to this questionnaire, simply remain silent on these capacity building programmes. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Community travel support consultation - draft of proposed response Local Time: 18 November 2017 6:06 PM UTC Time: 18 November 2017 18:06 From: tatiana.tropina@gmail.com To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>

Thanks, Michele, I can certainly live with the path forward you suggested because we indeed are working on the response to the questionnaire on the SG (and Cs) level as well. Thanks to all who commented! Looking forward to getting more comments if there are any (not on the fellowship issue only, of course), and then Michele, Ayden and I can adjust the document next week. Cheers, Tanya

On 18 November 2017 at 18:01, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> wrote:

...

All

As one of those who drafted the comments with Tatiana I am happy to stand over them, however I fully accept what Donna is saying.

So maybe the path forward is to do the following:

1 – a submission from the GNSO Council taking into consideration Donna’s suggestions, without getting into the quagmire of some of the programs. This would keep within the scope of the GNSO Council’s views on this hopefully.

2 – Those of us who feel strongly that comments should be submitted regarding certain aspects of the travel support program do so separately ie. not as a submission by Council, but as community members who wish to express their opinion.

Of course there is also the option of submissions via our respective stakeholder groups etc., though I’m not sure if that will really work for everyone.

Just a suggestion.

Regards

Michele

--

Mr Michele Neylon

Blacknight Solutions

Hosting, Colocation & Domains

https://www.blacknight.com/

https://blacknight.blog/

https://ceo.hosting/

Intl. [+353 (0) 59 9183072](tel:+353%2059%20918%203072)

Direct Dial: [+353 (0)59 9183090](tel:+353%2059%20918%203090)

-------------------------------

Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty

Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,

Ireland Company No.: 370845

From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina@gmail.com> Date: Saturday 18 November 2017 at 13:04 To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg@isoc-cr.org> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Community travel support consultation - draft of proposed response

[Hi Carlos and all,]

Thanks a lot for your comments.

if we follow your logic it means that only those who are responsible for the fellowship and NextGen programs are able to comment on its effectiveness, although fellowship is supposed to be beneficial for the entire community and should be assessed by the community.

I asked on the GNSO call when the questionnaire was presented why it missed questions about the fellowship and NextGen (as these programs have a large share in the ICANN travel budget) and whether this would be added at the later stage. I was told that we can add our comments on this at the end of the questionnaire as general remarks.

I believe there are a lot of concerns about these programs. I see that we have no consensus as to whether we can comment on this, but I do think it's worth to raise these concerns and that we as a GNSO council are in a position to do so. This is what "general remarks" section is for, in my opinion.

So I am apparently with the drafting team and with Erika and Julf here that instead of deleting the paragraph about these programs, we might even add more there, e.g. highlight that they are not ICANN focused enough.

Warm regards,

Tanya

On 18 November 2017 at 13:32, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg@isoc-cr.org> wrote:

...

Good morning!

I have read the questionnaire again. I think that the questionnaire is asking questions about our own SO (only).

While I think the comment is interesting, I do agree with Donna that is falls outside of the Questionnaires realm.

So in good ICANN Style, If somebody wants to write a high level "rationale" about ICANN travel support policy, it make sense to add it in the email remitting the GNSO answers to the questionnaire.

But in my view, it does not answer any of the questions.

My two cents

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez ISOC Costa Rica Chapter skype carlos.raulg[+506 8837 7176](tel:+506%208837%207176) ________ Apartado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA

On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 5:03 AM, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> wrote:

...

Erika,

...

How about mentioning that there's concern that the Fellowship Program is not sufficiently focusing on ICANN issues? I made a recommendation below. If you don't like it, change it or don't include it. Both is fine with me.

I think it is a good addition.

Julf

_______________________________________________ council mailing listcouncil@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

_______________________________________________ council mailing listcouncil@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

All, This is fine as a way forward for me too. Having said that I’d like to point out that many members have raised similar issues within our constituency with the exact same idea of kpis/metrics – although it’s arguably something which may be difficult to develop. Moving forward and generally speaking I think that is not unreasonable to expect that travel support or part thereof be monitored against such “active contribution”. Certainly each program may have a different view of what that is, but some way to evaluate this as we move along only seems a very basic requirement for accountability. Thanks to Michele, Ayden and Tatiana for articulating this. Regards, Philippe Fouquart Orange Labs Networks +33 (0) 1 57 39 58 13 From: council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2017 6:01 PM To: Tatiana Tropina; Carlos Raul Gutierrez Cc: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Community travel support consultation - draft of proposed response All As one of those who drafted the comments with Tatiana I am happy to stand over them, however I fully accept what Donna is saying. So maybe the path forward is to do the following: 1 – a submission from the GNSO Council taking into consideration Donna’s suggestions, without getting into the quagmire of some of the programs. This would keep within the scope of the GNSO Council’s views on this hopefully. 2 – Those of us who feel strongly that comments should be submitted regarding certain aspects of the travel support program do so separately ie. not as a submission by Council, but as community members who wish to express their opinion. Of course there is also the option of submissions via our respective stakeholder groups etc., though I’m not sure if that will really work for everyone. Just a suggestion. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ https://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265, Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina@gmail.com<mailto:tatiana.tropina@gmail.com>> Date: Saturday 18 November 2017 at 13:04 To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg@isoc-cr.org<mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org>> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Community travel support consultation - draft of proposed response Hi Carlos and all, Thanks a lot for your comments. if we follow your logic it means that only those who are responsible for the fellowship and NextGen programs are able to comment on its effectiveness, although fellowship is supposed to be beneficial for the entire community and should be assessed by the community. I asked on the GNSO call when the questionnaire was presented why it missed questions about the fellowship and NextGen (as these programs have a large share in the ICANN travel budget) and whether this would be added at the later stage. I was told that we can add our comments on this at the end of the questionnaire as general remarks. I believe there are a lot of concerns about these programs. I see that we have no consensus as to whether we can comment on this, but I do think it's worth to raise these concerns and that we as a GNSO council are in a position to do so. This is what "general remarks" section is for, in my opinion. So I am apparently with the drafting team and with Erika and Julf here that instead of deleting the paragraph about these programs, we might even add more there, e.g. highlight that they are not ICANN focused enough. Warm regards, Tanya On 18 November 2017 at 13:32, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg@isoc-cr.org<mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org>> wrote: Good morning! I have read the questionnaire again. I think that the questionnaire is asking questions about our own SO (only). While I think the comment is interesting, I do agree with Donna that is falls outside of the Questionnaires realm. So in good ICANN Style, If somebody wants to write a high level "rationale" about ICANN travel support policy, it make sense to add it in the email remitting the GNSO answers to the questionnaire. But in my view, it does not answer any of the questions. My two cents Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez ISOC Costa Rica Chapter skype carlos.raulg +506 8837 7176<tel:+506%208837%207176> ________ Apartado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 5:03 AM, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>> wrote: Erika,

How about mentioning that there's concern that the Fellowship Program is not sufficiently focusing on ICANN issues? I made a recommendation below. If you don't like it, change it or don't include it. Both is fine with me.

I think it is a good addition. Julf _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.