2008/7/16 Ross Rader <ross@tucows.com>:
Izumi AIZU wrote:
Some cultures are not accustomed to be exposed in financial details on individual basis. If ICANN community wants to know how much ALAC is spending, then aggregation should be sufficient.
I think it is more important to know who is receiving funding than how much.
OK,
In general, I think it is appropriate that if any individual accepts funding that they also accept the strings attached to it - i.e. that details regarding the funding will be made public. Anyone uncomfortable with that can choose not to accept the funding.
well - that could be another story, i have not luxury in explaining in detail now, it is 11:30 pm, but I would not say "Anyone uncomfortable with that can choose not to accept the funding." since most of these receive funding will not be able to participate in ALAC unless they get financial support at current set-up. Being "advisory" and have no support mechanism just discourage.
Keep in mind that I'm not worried about the use of travel funds to support ALAC members. I'm much more concerned about the use of travel funds by professional lobbyists and lawyers and consultants looking for clients - as has become so popular within the GNSO. I raise this as an issue here because it is a terrible use of registration funds.
OK, that makes more sense than demanding the 100% transparency per individual. I asked for the travel funding policy right after the current ALAC was set-up, in 2002, and it took five years to get the first version of the travel policy. 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. izumi
/r
--
Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org