[ALAC] Further Information about At-Large Travel

[Carlton Samuels]

Evan:
I think your last paragraph has the kernel of the truth. We were "recruited" by ICANN and purposefully so. Now that that purpose is served, we are past our sell-by date.

These kinds of corporate manoeuvrings are not extraordinary and I truly don't take it personal since the broad outlines have been visible for quite some time.  What I personally find loathsome is this idea that somehow we here in the sticks can't figure it out!

Carlton   

-----Original Message-----
From: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 09:09 AM
To: Nick Ashton-Hart
Cc: ALAC Working List
Subject: Re: [ALAC] Further Information about At-Large Travel

Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
>
>
> Funding is available for 15 persons only. If some members of ALAC
> wished to waive attendance for a meeting in favour of a Secretariat
> member, I’m sure that ALAC and the community could decide upon some
> different allocation methodology for the 15 funded spots (that’s a
> part of the travel framework for the other parts of the community who
> are receiving funding after all).

You do realize, of course, that this means that the three key organizers
of the Summit (Wolf, Darlene and myself) will thus not be at Cairo to do
planning, engage other constituencies, co-ordinate with staff or conduct
workshops.

(While ALAC is not without its own non-performers -- whose presence
would hardly be missed at a F2F -- it is unreasonable and completely
unproductive to divert ALAC attention away from policy and towards
arguing over who would be left behind.)

> I hope that you also understand that in trying to provide more travel
> support overall to the whole ICANN community, it was always highly
> likely that the one community that received considerable support would
> end up receiving less in order to help other communities receive more.

Yes, I keep forgetting about how badly the IPC and Registrars needed
ICANN subsidy in order to participate so they can protect their sources
of revenue from undue public meddling. This policy worsens an existing
imbalance under the newspeak of "fairness".

It is also important to note that it has been Staff's sole decision to
make travel funding a zero-sum game -- to increase one constituency's
funding at the expense of another's. It could have easily chose to
increase funding for other constituencies without diminishing the
support for At-Large, and to advance that position to the Board. It's
not as if ICANN's revenues are falling.

> I know that you and others in At-Large view this community as having
> characteristics different from other stakeholder groups, in particular
> commercial stakeholders, and that this uniqueness merits different and
> greater support for attendance at ICANN meetings. Doug is trying to
> create a predictable, transparent, and reasonable travel framework for
> all volunteers and as has been said in the announcement he understands
> that there is no way that doing this will please everyone.

This of course, begs the question of who ICANN ultimately exists to please.

I would submit that ICANN -- and certainly its staff -- have been
following the lead of well-financed squeaky wheels and completely lost
touch with the real mandate of whom ICANN exists to serve.

Are you really telling us with a straight face that the participants
from the commercial constituencies and contracted bodies must -- as a
matter of ICANN official policy -- be treated identically to those who
are purely acting out of public service, who were _actively recruited_
by ICANN itself?

If such a position is what ICANN staff considers "reasonable", then this
should indeed be welcome revelation to the JPA consultations. Increasing
Institutional Confidence, indeed. It is reason for more DOC oversight,
not more independence, if ICANN cannot be trusted to distinguish between
its vested interests and its public interest. Proposing to subsidize its
vested interests -- at the expense of the public interest -- is fodder
for ridicule.

> What I would suggest is that the community has the rest of this FY to
> socialise the rationale for a different travel regime for At-Large for
> the next FY. Who knows? It is even possible that some of the other
> communities receiving support will wish to see a different allocation
> of resources in the next budget, which would change the travel support
> that various communities receive.
It is highly unlikely that other communities, that have been pushing so
long to be funded, could be persuaded to reverse their recent gains.
This is all the more unlikely considering that many of the new
beneficiaries have a direct financial interest in minimizing the
effectiveness of At-Large anyway; this policy serves them doubly well.

Who knows indeed.

- Evan



_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac