[NA-Discuss] Summary Minutes NARALO Teleconference 09 June

[Evan Leibovitch]

Danny Younger wrote:
> You are at liberty to make the case that the at-large deserves more dollars than other constituent bodies.  I would argue that those who do the work are to be rewarded, while those that accomplish almost nothing should receive almost nothing.
>   
Danny, you can't suck and blow at the same time. In your
counter-proposal to Summit funding you advocated a formula that refused
to fund anyone that had so much as participated in an email discussion,
subsidizing only the silent ones. Now you magically argue for just the
opposite. Both arguments, seemingly changing in tune with the tides, are
critically flawed. They're not only mind-boggingly inconsistent, they're
simply wrong.

At-Large is a body explicitly designed to find people and organizations
who are not already deeply versed in policy, to bring them to a
sufficient level of awareness and then to extract opinion. During the
last NARALO conference call -- that Danny supposedly attended -- a
number of people clearly indicated that they are intimidated by the
lingo and the elitism that serves as a barrier to effective
participation by newcomers. Some by nature are hesitant to participate
in discussions dominated by those who are more .... assertive. Others
who are unsure of their positions simply choose not to participate for
fear of embarrassing themselves. That does not mean they cannot
contribute or that their views are not worth hearing. It means that this
particular form of communications does not work for all.

The face to face meetings afforded by travel subsidy is another form of
communications, less frequent but extremely effective. It's been my
experience that some people simply work better when they can put faces
to email addresses and look people in the eye as they're talking. The
occasional smile helps too.

As for other constituent bodies, they have vested interests to protect,
interests that are generally well-financed. Lacking such vested
interests, At-Large will almost by definition not match the resources of
the other constituencies. So the choice is either providing resources,
or silencing At-Large (with the exception of squeaky wheels such as
Danny; this explains why he wants to cut funding to us no matter which
rationale-of-the-day he uses, -- silencing all these poor, uninformed
policy pretenders leaves more of the stage to him).

One size does not fit all. I prefer not to shut out people whose views
have been under-represented simply because the current forms of ICANN
communications are badly suited to them. So I will continue to advocate
for support for a process that is an inclusive and diverse as possible.

- Evan