[NA-Discuss] New Travel Policy - a symptom

[Evan Leibovitch]

Alan Greenberg wrote:
> There have been three business oriented constituencies in ICANN from 
> the start (that is, since constituencies came into being) - 
> Commercial and Business users, ISPs and Intellectual Property.
I guess my point of view is that the BC and IPC really are one and the
same. That they were allowed to form as two constituencies, regardless
of the mechanics of how it happened, still serves to dilute the role of
the public-interest groups.

>> The fact remains that, even without funding, the business and contracted
>> communities manage to show up in force at every ICANN meeting.
>>     
>
> Not quite accurate. In Delhi (admittedly an extreme case), the 
> business and contracted party constituencies of the GNSO Council were 
> missing 6 of their 15 Councillors. 1 Registry, 2 Registrar, and all 
> three IP. Perhaps one or two of these were for personal reasons, but 
> money was the driver.
>   
And yet 60% oshowed up, under the most extreme case.

At the other extreme, I'd be curious to know the attendee breakdown last
year in L.A.

By contrast, how much of At-Large could attend ICANN meetings -- even in
L.A. -- without funding?


> Surely many of those associated with Internet-driven businesses are 
> at ICANN funded by their employers. But there are others who pay 
> their own way, and who must make up the time away from their 
> businesses (particularly true for some lawyers with firms who worship 
> only billable hours).
Sorry, but that's not a useful rebuttal. There are significant numbers
of lawyers and consultants who come to meetings in the hope of landing
new business, either directly through contacts or indirectly through
building of career-related expertise. (Since registration is free,
attending ICANN may be cheaper for some than attending a conventional
business or academic conference.) Even though they may not be officially
paid to affect policy, it is still in their direct financial interest
(and a deductible business expense) to attend. And law firms have been
known to cut slack to associates' time that, while not billable, can be
directly attributed to landing new clients.

The number of legal and business reps who attend ICANN without treating
their trips as a business expense can probably be counted on one hand.

In any case, to me this is more about cutting At-Large resources than it
is about complaining about other constituencies. If ICANN staff chose to
elevate the SOs level of travel funding without touching the vision of
At-Large, I would hardly be so vocal.

- Evan