ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net
ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net
Thu Jun 23 23:16:23 UTC 2011
I was physically present at the ALAC meeting referenced in your comment
on Community Travel Support Guidelines.
My presence there was accidental, as a resignation had taken place in
the very recent past, creating a re-allocation-or-loss question, and
the applicant support policy was "of the moment", and so the support
was offered to me. The set of incidences goes further, as for personal
reasons it was both a difficult decision to make, and it resulted in
an out of pocket expense of some significance, to repace myself in the
caretaker role I was engaged in prior to travel to Singapore.
My presence there was further accidental in that while I was not a
quora-capable person, the process of the ALAC executive and the set
of substantive issues, which included a vote on a resolution relating
to the co-operaton of the GAC and ALAC on the applicant support issue,
did interest me, so I was present.
There were circumstances -- the bathrooms were several minutes distant,
and to get from the ALAC (and GAC) rooms involved passing through the
distraction rich vendor exhibit area. Bladder control, schmoozing with
GAC member, schmoozing with the better or worse of the for-profit actors,
and the location and social cost of coffee (see "schmoozing", above) are
credible -- to me -- explinations of the absence in the first minutes of
the second (or third) of a back-to-back meeting schedule.
But assuming no credible excuse or bad faith on the part of those not
available for form a quora in the first minutes of that meeting, your
means to compel a cure has consequences.
I would not be here, and what ever little I've personally managed to
initiate, support, enhance, detract, or stop, relaing to applicant
support, I would not have been able to accomplish, had I chosen not
to accept the complex personal cost of participation, or had the
travel support not been re-allocated, or simply not available to be
If I thought my week without merit, I would say so, as I really do have
other demands on my time in the present -- elder care pre- and post-
major surgery, care for my profoundly autistic pre-teen son, academic
work, farm work, co-op work, and simply not sweating bullets when out
I can't agree with the recommendation to impose a moratorium on all
at-large travel support. I wouldn't agree with it even if I thought
a quorum call had been missed by deliberate, reflected choice, as I
know that some persons I know better than others who do receive
travel support more regularly than I (another loss of primary travel
support recipient allowed me to attend the Cartagena meeting, where
my primary interest was expanding the protection of informed consent
or expression of non-opposition to non-capital municipal administrations)
are working as hard or harder than I am during the 8 or so days of face
to face meetings with others, not from the At Large Advisory Committee,
who are engaged in policy work.
To be very blunt, given the efficacy of policy advocates who have
material support over those that do not, and here my point of view
is one informed by having material support in 2000/2001, 2002, 2004,
and 2007-2010, representing the advoacy interests of NeuSar, several
funded .org and .net redelgation applicant efforts, a registrar, and
a registrar-also-registry-platform operator, no meaningful "public
interest advocacy" would be possible under the restriction proposed.
It is a fact that presence and persistence in that presence is more
determinative of outcomes than any other alternative.
I'd like to see ICANN limit the number of bodies vendors can staff
their advocacy efforts with, before cutting the public interest
travel support, if some travel support reform is to be made.
Thank you for your time in reading this rather lengthy, and more
than usually personalized public note of difference to a public
comment, the legitimacy of which I question not at all.
More information about the NA-Discuss