Evan, I whole-heartedly support both of your points, but I don't think that either are responsive to the question on the table (Community Travel Support Guidelines). On the second point, given the messages that resulted from my last posting about Cartagena, I suspect that we would have very diverse opinions within the ALAC and At-Large on that issue. However, I think that we need to further discuss both issues. The issue of staff travel costs is one that we may want Cheryl to raise on the A&T review team. And regarding meeting locations, We will likely be seeing something from the Board Public Participation Committee in the near future, and it serve us well if we had discussed this issee ahead of time, to at least delineate our various positions. Alan At 13/05/2010 11:50 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

Good work Alan, I like Adam's additions as well,

Is there any room or context to talk about staff travel policy for attending regional meetings? These are the ones that are done for only parts of the community (registrars, mostly) but are closed to others. If ICANN is concerned about the costs of flinging people around the world, then shouldn't its own staff be part of the equation?

Also: it seems that we need to remind ICANN that its choice of meeting cities will definitely have an effect on travel expenses. The choice of Cartahena may be useful for other reasons but it will be a nightmare from a POV of booking travel. This seems a step backwards from the original inclination to prefer significant travel hubs.

- Evan