[NA-Discuss] New Travel Policy - a symptom

[Evan Leibovitch]

Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
> I believe that we are trying to 'level the playing field' for participation by the individual Internet user interest in ICANN.
Such "levelling" is being done in favour of direct business interests
(whether contracted bodies or consultants, lawyers and lobbyists who
would not be here if not already paid to do so), and at the expense of
the only body that ICANN itself created to represent the public interest.

Already, the business and IP communities have split themselves into two
different constituencies -- though they share the same interests and
motivations -- in order to dilute the representation of the public
interest. This did not and could not happen without the consent of ICANN
management.

The fact remains that, even without funding, the business and contracted
communities manage to show up in force at every ICANN meeting. Perhaps
ICANN management might understand that this is because they have
financial interest in ICANN direction so it is in their financial
interest to sway policy in their favour. The new gTLD policy essentially
demonstrates the business interests collectively silencing the
non-commercial voice, without any subsidy at all.

And now the intent is to reduce At-Large support.... except for staff.

> For many years now, this community has received a concentration of resources of all kinds  which in many respects is much greater than that provided to any other stakeholder group, precisely because there's an awareness that for broad civil society representation to exist, different kinds of support systems and structures are necessary than are required for participation by (for example) interests who have a core commercial interest in participating.
>   
If that is understood, then so is the need for an "unbalanced playing
field". What changed?

> The financial resources dedicated to At-Large over the years are in the millions, as you know. There is a continuing commitment - At-Large currently has more dedicated staff exclusively serving the community than the GNSO, for example - and the recent decision to fund a Summit of all ALSes is another example.
>   
And yet, the Summit did not come about without many obstacles, and as we
speak its own planning resources have been slashed.

> I am not saying all this as an attempt to persuade you that you should not hold to the views you have on travel, or that the issues you raise about travel aren't significant, or that ICANN is doing all it can do. I am saying that I believe ICANN is trying to increase its support for At-Large overall.

... by boosting the At-large dedicated staff budget (which we're not
allowed to see, let alone control) while reducing direct support for the
volunteer community by 78%. This is indeed an interesting belief.

> We're also trying to support other communities in their efforts at participation,
Do you believe that the IP, business and contracted communities would
not show up at meetings without ICANN subsidy? Doesn't current reality
refute that need?

> and of course the relative levels of support offered will never make everyone happy. There are only so many dollars to go around.
>   

This is ICANN, not Chrysler. The pool grows every year, soon to grow
even faster through gTLD auctions.


> At Cheryl's request, I am working out a time when Doug and Denise are available to discuss the travel policy with any members of the community who wish to attend - we're aiming for next week.
>   

If this call happens, please ensure that staff do not waste our time
with speeches about how much has already been spent on At-Large. We get
it. You have made sure we get it. Instead, I would like Doug and Denise
be prepared to explain the present and future rather than the past:

- how much of the non-staff component of At-Large resources -- that is,
money spent directly on the volunteers -- will change over the coming years

- how the staff expects a Summit to be planned smoothly without any
Summit organizers in Cairo

- how much the At-Large community is being engaged to provide
translation and documentation resources in order to reduce cost and
increase efficiency

- what input At-Large has into the allocation of its own budget

- how the staff expects ALAC to increase (let alone maintain) its level
of co-ordination and effectiveness when only half of its elected members
will be able to attend meetings

- why the business, IP and contracted constituencies need and deserve
ICANN support for their lobbyists

- how outreach will be done since At-Large proposals and regional
meetings have been eliminated without consultation

- why At-Large cannot be charged with determining how much staff support
it needs -- perhaps some money spent on staff can be better spent
directly in the community

- Evan