[NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Post-Paris Review

[Evan Leibovitch]

Ross Rader wrote:
> I think it is more important to know who is receiving funding than how
> much. In general, I think it is appropriate that if any individual
> accepts funding that they also accept the strings attached to it -
> i.e. that details regarding the funding will be made public. Anyone
> uncomfortable with that can choose not to accept the funding.
That's certainly fair.

> Keep in mind that I'm not worried about the use of travel funds to
> support ALAC members. I'm much more concerned about the use of travel
> funds by professional lobbyists and lawyers and consultants looking
> for clients - as has become so popular within the GNSO.
This is what bothers me about the unexplained push for "equity" in the
new travel regime. ALAC and NCUC are amongst the only organized
participants in ICANN that are neither governments nor financial
interests. As such ALAC and NCUC members cannot themselves justify
travel based on business expense. The same holds true of NomComm
appointees, who are chosen to represent the "greater good" and as such
also have neither the financial interest nor the cost justification for
travelling to attend.

The apparent staff obsession to fund constituencies that don't need the
subsidy, at the expense of those who do, is what I consider worrisome.
Why do I say this is a staff drive? There's been absolutely no
consultation with the affected parties in advance -- certainly nobody
asked our RALO or my ALS, and we're directly impacted. Also, as our
Board Liaison reported in the NARALO conference call, there was
absolutely no Board debate on the last-minute change that removed the
ALAC exemption from the new travel policy.

The entire process smells of having been manipulated in a most
un-transparent way. And if staff isn't manipulating this process, who
is? Who else could?

My personal suggestion at this time -- and one that was endorsed at the
NARALO conference call -- was to consider making this horrible exclusion
of public particpation part of a submission to the President's public
consultations on Improving Institutional Confidence (part of the JPA
process)

http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#iic-consultation
http://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/index.htm


The modification of the travel policy, in such a way as to badly --
possibly critically -- reduce the public voice within ICANN while
funding business interests, should certainly be of interest to the US
DOC as well as ICANN's Board. So should the completely untransparent
manner in which all of this came about. The effect of such actions to
undermine public confidence can (and should) be easily understood and
documented. Anyone interested in assisting with the task of drafting
such a statement, before the first-draft deadline of the end of this
month, is invited to contact me.

- Evan