RE: [ga] Re: Funding of ICANN Board candidate travel expense

["Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>]

Thank you , Vany!

I know the cheap fares are available. Yes, too much time wasted
argueing. Not enough time spent on organizing financial assistance and
arranging travel!

I just read Raul (.ur) post about 60 persons receiving travel
assistance!

Peter de Blanc

-----Original Message-----
From: vany@polux.sdnp.org.pa [mailto:vany@polux.sdnp.org.pa] On Behalf
Of Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 10:00 PM
To: Peter de Blanc
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Funding of ICANN Board candidate travel expense


Hi Peter:

Just for let you know that I found an airfair for travel roundtrip Paris
- Montevideo with Airfrance for $645.00.  This airfare requires 14 days
reservation in advance, so Jefsey and any other traveling from France
has more than a chance to get this fare (there is like 16 days, so he
has to buy the ticket tomorrow or no later than wednesday, for example)
I just e-mailed to Jefsey saying the same.

I think that Jefsey lost his time arguying about this.  Imagine that is
more expensive to travel from Pamama to Uruguay ($820.00), than from
France.

But, also it happened to sometimes that when the funds are secure just
two or three days before the travel, the cheap airfare is not available
:-(

Cheers
Vany
:-)



Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Danny, have you missed ALL of the discussion about funding of 
> candidates travel?
>
> 1. Philip does not have the authority to spend DNSO funds.
> 2. ICANN should not pay for the candidates.
> 3. I have posted on this list sources of funds. To my knowledge, NO 
> candidate has asked any of these sources for travel money to date. 4. 
> Joop is receiving travel funds from one of the sources, so no one can 
> say it is not possible. 5. I suggested private funding of the 
> candidates. 6 I offerred to personally provide matching funds for 
> every candidate.
>
> So far, all that is going on here is aimless discussion. What is 
> needed is for the candidates who wish to come and cannot afford it to 
> ask for the money they need from their supporters, and from the 
> foundations.
>
> As far as whether or not there is a formal presentatoion by candidates

> to the GA, or the constituencies or not, it ultimately does not 
> matter. Those candidates that are physically there will campaign in 
> the lobby, the corridors, the coctail lounges, and the constituency 
> meetings.
>
> The reality is that candidates who are physically there in montevideo 
> WILL have an advantage. It is not an ideal world.
>
> Peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org] On Behalf Of 
> DannyYounger@cs.com
> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 7:57 PM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: [ga] Re: Funding of ICANN Board candidate travel expense
>
> Dear members,
>
> Leah has raised a significant issue that is worthy of debate.  She
> states:
> "Furthermore, if all candidates cannot be present in Montevideo, 
> perhaps none of them should be presented as a part of the meetings to 
> avoid unfair advantage."
>
> As I was in favor of a candidates' forum/debate/question-answer 
> session in Montevideo, upon hearing Peter deBlanc's remark during the 
> Names Council
>
> teleconference that funding might be available for the candidates, I 
> wrote to Phil Sheppard regarding this issue.  My position was that the
> constituencies
> had voted in favor of a later date for their NC vote in order to have
> the
> possibility of face-to-face meetings with the candidates, this
decision
> having been made in the full knowledge that certain candidates might
not
> be
> able to attend owing to financial considerations.
>
> Knowing that the DNSO has a budget category for "travel" and another 
> budget category for "contingencies", I argued that we have an 
> opportunity to provide
> every candidate with an equal opportunity to be heard in person, and
> that a
> failure to do so would not be in the best interests of those
> constituencies
> that expressed a desire to personally meet all the candidates.
>
> Phil sheppard made a counter-proposal to hold "telephone hustings for 
> such candidates".
>
> At this point in time, I tend to share Leah's view that any session 
> with only some of the candidates present may in fact serve to 
> discriminate against the
> other candidates, but I haven't as yet come to a definate conclusion.
> What
> is sufficiently clear is that the Council Chair will not authorize
funds
> for
> the candidates' travel expenses.
>
> I do have my doubts about a telephone session (having noticed the 
> connectivity issues we faced at Stockholm, and the problems at the 
> last ALSC session), but perhaps there is some merit in this 
> proposal...
>
> I leave it to you to decide whether the GA should sponsor a session 
> for the candidates.  Please let me know your thoughts.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
Information Technology Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
e-mail: vany@sdnp.org.pa
http://www.sdnp.org.pa



--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html