Izumi AIZU wrote:
Well, so what,,, yes. I would rather like to have a clear policy on "conflict of interest" for all officers of ICANN, including Board members and GNSO council, than just targeting the ALAC travel funding. Of course, ALAC also should have the conflict of interest policy and its enforcement.
I am not under the impression that it is the ALAC travel funding that is targeted. For sure, the ALAC Summit (that I personally endorse, support, and look forward to) is making some eyebrows rise, considering the impact on the budget. However, I believe that the key issue is to have a fair policy by which ICANN does not finance folks who would have participated anyway, paid by their employers (or supporters, or lobbying groups, or whatever). We will never be able to have a perfect mechanism by which we can flag each individual asking for funding as "deserving" or "not-deserving" the funding: it might in the end cost more to do proper and thorough due diligence than to apply looser criteria. However, one principle has to be kept as a key issue: transparency. I think (and I am talking in my personal capacity, not as a Board member) that the names of the people whose travel (or other expenditure) is funded by ICANN should be public, possibly with a short sentence explaining in what capacity the individual is funded. The amount of the funding should not be disclosed, though, simply because while there is a "need to know" who is being funded, and why, there is no "need to know" how much the real cost is. Public scrutiny should be directed to the principles governing the policy, not the accounting details. I fully understand Izumi's concerns about cultural differences, but we have to establish some basic principles for transparency and accountability, failing which we might expose the organization (and ourselves) not only to heavy criticism, but to suspicion of dealing with funding in a way that is not compliant with the expoused principles. Cheers, Roberto