[NA-Discuss] New Travel Policy - a symptom

[Dharma Dailey]

Dear Nick and All,

This issue of travel funding heralds the confusion that I have with  
trying to be an active participant in NARALO.   I suppose since ICANN  
solicited membership in this body, it was seen as serving a function  
within ICANN for At-Large to exist.  But there seems to be  
inconsistency and lack of clarity about what is required to make At- 
Large a fully featured contributing member of the ICANN community.  My  
understanding is as follows:  At-Large in its present iteration is one  
in a series of attempts by ICANN to solicit participation of  
individuals and entities who "represent internet users."  At-Large is  
intended to bring in people who are outside of the loop of  the vested  
interests that perpetually and justifiably make up the majority of  
people participating in ICANN- those whose livelihoods are based  
around registries and domains.   All parties will concede, I think,  
that recruitment, retention, and integration into ICANN processes of  
folks without a vested financial or career interest in ICANN outcomes  
turns out to be no small task.

I have limited experience working within international governance  
bodies, so I can't speak to best practices regarding travel  
allowances.  But I do have tons of experience working on all-volunteer  
and mostly volunteer community technology projects.   My experience as  
an organizer on such projects is that, without fail, integrating  
people who represent aspects of a community that reaches beyond the  
usual suspects always requires more time, more money, more initiative,  
and more emotional fortitude than one ever anticipates.   There are a  
series of cultural learning curves that need to take place from all  
parties before At-Large can work together more functionally and within  
ICANN more functionally.

On the flip side, speaking as volunteer who has in turn been  
"organized" by ICANN, I am still waiting to see what value, if any,  
there is to being a participant in the ICANN community.   Is there any  
benefit I can bring back to Community Networks in North America based  
on involvement in NARALO?  So far, I feel that the only outcome of my  
participation to date, the signing of the NARALO agreement, benefited  
ICANN in a one-sided way.  Our signatures can be used by ICANN as  
proof positive that an American based corporation has the right to  
take on a piece of development that is sensitive for the entire  
world.   However, if participation by Community Networks is nulled by  
vagaries of funding, by vagaries of priorities, by lack of clarity of  
what value we *could* bring to ICANN-  I would have to say that my  
participation is actually causing harm to the groups I work with and  
work for.

  Integrating such an all volunteer group of unusual suspects into an  
entity as large and tentacled as ICANN compounds the challenge by a  
few orders of magnitude.  Volunteer based work has its own pace --  
much slower - than when a paycheck is involved.   ICANN has done a  
good job of getting  talented and varied volunteer groups from across  
the globe, but the body as a whole still needs development.   
Development still equals some combination of time, talent and money.    
Time and talent need to come both from ICANN and from the RALOs.   
Money needs to come from ICANN.    I believe that a timeline of less  
than 5 years for development of At-Large is unrealistic.   (From my  
reckoning NARALO is just beginning year two.)   It is very very  
difficult, some argue impossible, to hash out a working plan, do  
strategic work, or figure out how to get along with colleagues when  
one is not actually sitting across from them.    Current thinking on  
project management- at least among those I've talked to such as Dr.  
Pepper at Cisco who is promoting some very fancy high end  
teleconferencing technology -- is that at the inception of a project  
people need to meet face to face, in person, early, and often.  Once  
good working relationships are established, strategy and mission are  
well defined, and a working plan is in hand, technology can take  
over.   ICANN can certainly choose who gets to meet, who doesn't, and  
how often, but "progress"- however defined-  will likely happen one  
meeting at a time.   If all stakeholders are not present, progress  
stalls or even dies.

If money is saved on travel but yet another iteration of  At-large  
tanks ICANN is penny wise and pound foolish.    The first order  
question is not how much should we spend on travel this year, but how  
do we develop and maintain,  over a realistic period of time,  a  
dedicated, talented, and diverse At-Large community which  rounds out  
what's missing in the rest of ICANN.

-Dharma Dailey
Emerging Futures Network



On Aug 2, 2008, at 11:25 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

> 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
>
> <NARALO submission to PSC.doc>------
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
> ------