[Ec-ncuc] Travel funding for Beijing [urgent]

[Wilson Abigaba]

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Edward Morris
<edward.morris at alumni.usc.edu> wrote:
>
> We do need to get a policy in place for future meetings.

I support this but not entirely. Policies might become too restrictive
and in some cases it will be hard to override it if there is need, and
the chair would always be quoted against following it even if there is
a sound reason. Perhaps we call them guidelines?

>  Concepts such as split awards, geographical considerations and the like > need to be evaluated.

I think the point on geographical location needs to be more
enlightened. In obvious cases, It would be the cost/budget of getting
to the meeting but I think this reasoning holds no water since ICANN
gives us slots rather than a budget. In any case, members from a
geographically close location should be able to (at least, partly )
fund themselves since it's now cheaper to get there.

On the other hand, Geographically closer members may be in a better
position to organize things (like a constituency event) since they
find it easier to mobile resources or perhaps recruit more familiar
members..which makes them  a case to for for the meeting.