RE: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
Reading the recent exchanges, it strikes me that the formal policy is somewhat at odds with the PDP methodology that ICANN is trying to institutionalize. The travel documents says "While the calculation of travel support funding is based in part on the size of each council and its liaisons, the SO can choose to support other constituency members based on what will best serve each SO's policy development work, e.g. working group members could be supported." At the same time, we are being told that WG's are the way to get the REAL work done. So if we are really effective, and just oversee the processes, and have lots of active, functioning WGs, we are faced with the choice of taking little travel money for Council itself, or telling our hard-working WG chairs and members, that they are largely on their own regarding funding. ICANN has formally adopted the BGC recommendations to move forcefully to a WG model for policy development; it seems strange that at the same instant, they are saying that there will be no funding unless Council is willing to give up some of the travel funding that, as Robin points out, started with the difficulty of some Councillors to attend ICANN meetings. It seems like a strange mixture of messages. Alan At 19/08/2008 03:06 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote: An even split for Cairo may make sense. But WG efforts *are* an intregal part of the policy process, and the goal of the funding is to broaden participation in policy processes. So why wouldn't the WGs fall under that?
|