[NA-Discuss] New Travel Policy - **IMPORTANT**

[Evan Leibovitch]

Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
> I thought you would wish to know that the travel policy referred to inferentially in the Board resolution in Paris has not yet been finalised, and therefore there has been no decision (one way or the other) to change the travel for At-Large as defined immediately below, so you may wish to keep the draft, when completed, ‘in your pocket’ as it were until the decision is announced. Or, of course, you could phrase it in such a way as to take account of the non-finalised-state of the policy.
>   
So noted.
> I would remind you all that I have on many occasions stated that the situation pre-FY2009, in which:
>
> At-Large received travel funding for 35 people to each meeting;
> Nominating Committee appointees received travel support
> All other communities received no funding
>
> Was going to change when a policy for volunteers was adopted, and that the result of that policy would almost certainly result in some level of travel support for those heretofore receiving none, and less support for those heretofore receiving the most.
>   
Reminding everyone multiple times of imminent bad policy does not
somehow render the policy less bad when it eventually happens.

Also, telling this to us on multiple occasions does not -- at least to
me -- indicate any level of consultation; rather, it indicates the
change asserted as a done deal, made by bureaucrats, with no
solicitation of impact from those it is effecting. This is a most
un-transparent process.

That ICANN believes that its "underfunded constituencies" -- the IP
lawyers, government bureaucrats and contracted parties -- require its
subsidy, is a matter of pure amazement. That such funding should come as
a result of reducing support to At-Large and the NomComm -- two bodies
of ICANN's own creation designed to represent the "greater good" amongst
all the self-interests -- goes beyond amazement into disbelief.

> I also said pretty clearly on multiple occasions that if the Summit proposal was approved, there would certainly be a reduction in the travel support for the community to the other two meetings during the financial year (no ‘doubling up’ of support).
>   
That was understood by everyone and you knew this. There was a target
for which we were aiming that every ALS member would have one
opportunity per year for F2F, whether at a nearby ICANN meeting or a
smaller regional event. A Summit to which all ALSs were invited would
satisfy the target for that year. (For instance, as a Summit is 
happening in 2009 there is NO expectation that any other regional F2F
take place that year.) However, everyone has also made it clear that the
Summit is a one-time event, but that the funding cutoff of ALSs to
attend regional meetings would be an ongoing policy that would long
outlast the Summit year. Uncertainty about the Summit time and place
means, for instance that there will be no ALS FSF meeting in the
Americas this year.

And again, stating something repeatedly does not make it right, and it
certainly does not constitute any form of consultation.

> This is not by way of trying to suggest that you should not make any points on the subject you feel should be made – on the contrary, you should say what you think should be said.
>   
And that has indeed been done. We have submitted a position (attached)
to the President's Committee on Increasing Institutional Confidence.
(http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#iic-consultation), as was
discussed at the last NARALO conference call.

In terms of direct comment on the travel policy, to whom should we
address any formal comments? So far the conversation has all been
top-down (with you telling us it was going to happen)... there is no
defined process or channel for our comments. What do you suggest?

> One thing about the contents I would suggest you modify – the EURALO GA met for the first time in Paris, but the EURALO itself has met several times previously using ICANN travel support. You may wish to modify that line in the statement to make it more accurate.
>   

Clarification: If the GA only met for the first time in Paris, then it
was only a subset of EURALO -- its exec -- that has met before. And the
MOU was formalized in Paris. So in reality, the entire EURALO did indeed
meet only for the first time this year; everything before that was prep
and informal.

Still, your point is taken, and I would be happy to make an appropriate
clarification to the submission. Unfortunately, Kieren told me that the
deadline for the ICC process was eight hours before your comment was
sent -- believe me, there would have been many more changes to the doc
had we been given a few more days. If you could put in a good word with
Kieren to allow this minor change it would be appreciated.

- Evan

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NARALO submission to PSC.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 129024 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attachments/20080802/738f687e/attachment-0001.doc