[LAC-Discuss] FW: [ALAC] Further Information about At-Large Travel

[carlos aguirre]

Amigos: reenvio actual discucion q esta teniendo lugar en ALAC sobre fondos de viaje, la cual me parece importante conozcan y puedan realizar algun aporte.

Carlos Dionisio Aguirre
abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -
*54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423
www.sitioderecho.com.ar
www.densi.com.ar > Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:08:48 -0400> From: evan at telly.org> To: Nick.Ashton-Hart at icann.org> CC: alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org> 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
_________________________________________________________________
Descargá GRATIS el poder del nuevo Internet Explorer 7.
http://optimized.msn.com/Default.aspx?mkt=es-ar