[NA-Discuss] Requesting Your Input...

[Evan Leibovitch]

> ICANN would like the input of the Secretariats about what kind of
> travel support is actually useful to support policy work. Would ‘means
> testing’ – requiring active engagement by community members in order
> to receive travel support, for example – be useful to increase
> participation?
>
I'm concerned about this wording because it suggests that ICANN wants
At-Large to suggest a means test that staff would then implement. I am
not in favour of any approach that gives staff the power of discretion
and interpretation.

I would prefer a budget process in which:

1) The Board determines how much it will spend on At-Large (in
consultation with At-Large)
2) At-Large determines how the allocation be spent on staff/education/travel
3) After the travel budget is determined, each region selects the ALSs
that can be subsidized based on published criteria and available funds
4) when possible, local registries and other bodies will be approached
to sponsor additional travel with the support and sanction of ICANN

Note: I specifically did not indicate whether "At-Large" means ALSs,
RALOs or ALAC. I am not yet sure how this should happen and am eager to
hear different points of view on the relevance of ALAC in this process.
My personal hope is that the ALAC review will result in a body that is
both more accountable to the RALOs and more responsible (for issues such
as budget, which it can now conveniently ignore).

The current process of having RALOs only attend ICANN meetings is
problematic as long as ICANN maintains a policy of having its meetings
in cities that are not major airline hubs, rotated in an uneven,
unequitable manner. Just look at our own situation -- two ICANN meetings
in North America this year (of which only one had travel offered), then
nothing until October 2010.

> Would more regional ALS meetings be a better use of the funds? Is a
> hybrid approach of some regional meetings and some ICANN meetings
> sensible?
>
IMO regional meetings should be called for, when there is no ICANN
meeting in a region or Summit that year.
 
>
> In addition, this track of work is meant to discuss the idea for an
> At-Large Summit. What could it achieve, and how? Is such a meeting the
> only way to achieve certain objectives – and if so, which ones?”
>
Having a Summit -- an event every two years with a known process -- will
offer at least a little balance to the instability of the current
policy. It is not even an absolute requirement that a Summit happen
alongside regular ICANN meetings.

- Evan