[NA-Discuss] Summary Minutes NARALO Teleconference 09 June

[Evan Leibovitch]

While I generally agree with some of Danny's concerns, my support is not
universal.

> 2.  Is fairness at play?  Is travel funding for the various segments of the ICANN community being managed equitably, or are some groups in receipt of a greater degree of largesse than others?
>   
At-Large absolutely does deserve a larger share than other
constituencies, thanks to its very nature and the reason it was created.
I have no qualms at all arguing that orgs which ICANN is explicitly
trying to actively solicit for opinions should have subsidy priority
over those who are involved because they have vested interests.

Maybe Danny would like to see ICANN "largesse" spread evenly amongst IP
law firms, business interests,  registrars. governments, and community
groups that are normally not involved in policy issues that already work
on shoestring budgets. I would venture that such a view is not dominant
within At-Large today. Indeed, the inconsistency of his argument is all
the more puzzling considering Danny has strongly argued on the Summit WG
list to deny travel funding for "American lawyers".

- Evan