Alan: Some matters will get the 'meh' and no more out of me. And I am moved to see the mea culpa; 'it is not an issue of travel as benefit'. But I cannot help being bemused to see the pronouncements from persons you and I know never said squat when the "travel tourists" were to be officially condemned. So be it. You've been around for longer than I have. But what I know for sure is for as long as I have been around, since 2006, everytime the matter of travel funding is up for mention, 'travel as benefit' rears its ugly head! I believe I have before now co-related this to a strategem used to characterise social security funding in the United States by politicians of a certain stripe to explain my objection. You are my institutional memory for the At-Large. And I know you know that at one time traveling to ICANN meetings was promoted as a benefit for *participation*. This is not a trivial distinction. There is a history to it. And that is the genesis of travel funding as benefit. You and I have done a lot of travel in our professional existence. And you know I have always objected to that chracterisation if for no other reason than the lack of accounting, in context, for our indivudual contributions to the names and numbers policy development enterprise. Here's my closeout. Any response to the problem of the "tourist traveler" that presents travel funding as a benefit to be traded undermines the At-Large capacity and capability to contribute to names and numbers policy development. This is my eternal objection. And I am unanimous on that. Best, -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 9:45 PM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Carlton, Greg beat me to it, but it is not an issue of travel as a "benefit". It is a resource, and all we are saying is that if we are to allocate that resource to a specific person, then we expect that it will be well used.
The issue of electing/selecting someone for a position and then not having them deliver quite a different one, although again there *may* be travel funding involved. And yes, if we have someone who does not deliver and then select them again, there is a problem, and one I think that we need to address, but that sadly, many others feel that we should not, and simply heed the will of the electors who seem to at times reward the behaviour that some of us would like to punish (whether we have the tools or not).
As you or someone said in a previous message, travel is a tool that facilitates volunteer contributions, nothing more or less. But it is a tool constrained by resources available and we should ALWAYS be paying attention to using our resources in a way that benefits At-Large and ICANN. That applies to travel, just as it applies to the extremely valuable resource of time donated (ie at no monetary cost to us or ICANN) by our volunteers. Neither should be squandered.
Alan
At 09/07/2019 10:07 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
Hi Roberto: Funny enough, we are closer to total agreement than you imagine.
You see, your second paragraph got to the heart of the issue. What to do when the job is not done?
My response is to tell the same persons to their face that they did not contribute much. And, message the folks who elect them as representative as much.
It's like electing a common fool for president and we blame the fool and not the voters who pulled the lever for the fool. In my corner of empire we tend to elect crooks, never fools. So we know what is our problem.
I'm suggesting we can fix those problems without dangling travel or other funding as benefits to be removed as punishment. Especially if it devalues your efforts and mine.
I have seen volunteers struggle to assimilate and articulate a position on an issue. I have seen so-called tourist travelers mature and make useful contributions. It is a crap shoot.
So, I want to reinforce the fact that not everybody is interested in every topic the At-Large gets all bothered about. Indeed, I have seen a few that IMHO, isn't worth a bucket of warm spit to the end user that we allegedly represent in names and numbers policy matters.
Not everybody need be interested in every topic to be a volunteer. Whosoever will may come. And, we can help them find their way in....or out.
Best Carlton
On Tue, 9 Jul 2019, 5:47 pm Roberto Gaetano, < roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote: Hi Carlton. As usual, we agree on some things and we disagree on other. I fully support your view that travel, in particular when tickets are provided at the lowest possible cost - which implies also the lowest level of comfort and service - is not a benefit but "the tool that it is to get a job done†. Where we disagree is what to do if and when the job is not done. IMHO, ALAC does not have just the option, but the duty, to analyse whether the limited funds should be allocated in a different way to maximise the result. That is, as you correctly put, "to get a job done†. Incidentally, if ALAC does not monitor the fund allocation and show that there is no waste, ICANN will do. And I personally don’t like at all this outcome. But since I am well-known for making examples that are a bit extreme, and sometimes drive people mad, please allow me to be up to my reputation and mention this case. These days in Italy there are a couple of cases of public administrations, including a public hospital, where employees have been caught being repeatedly absent from work while colleagues were clocking them in and out. Am I the only one who sees similarities? Cheers, Roberto
On 09.07.2019, at 23:14, Carlton Samuels < carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear John: I know you mean well. But I must register my profound and utter disagreement with you here. And, on principle.
At-Large representatives are volunteers. Largely.
I am seethe at this indignity that a measure of my voluntarism connects to me flying somewhere to volunteer my time, my energy, my intellectual capital and yes, my labour, all as public goods.
I would not wish to be so judged. And what is proposed is nothing but an episode of the slave's torment; doing what he thinks would appease his master by providing the hog grease for the leather whip that stipes his own back.
I came to this opposition from bitter experience. It started when I was the only elected LACRALO official. And in a period when travel was dangled as a benefit to volunteers. I couldn't give a tinker's damn since by that time I had already racked up 2 million plus airmiles. And traveling steerage class is not my idea of a fun time.
In that period of time, LACRALO arguably provided the most egregious examples of the ICANN tourist traveler. And I suffered the slings of my northern metropolitan colleagues for vehemently opposing sanctions on the then LACRALO ALAC representatives. [I am ever grateful to Evan for supporting me on principle!] My argument was those persons behaved badly as individuals. I told them so. One has hated me to this day. But inspite of him, I adamantly refused to support travel sanctions against them. That action reinforces that rather louche idea that travel is a benefit rather than the tool that it is to get a job done. And to hypothecate the tool as security for work to be done seems immoral to me.
Value is assigned my time and intellectual capital by others; I sell them for fee. I got home less than 2 hours ago from Suriname. Most in this thread would likely not even know where that is. it is a hump to get to. And, somebody paid me for that.
As a volunteer, my time, intellectual capital and my own coin have been placed in trust and in the service of the At-Large. An airplane ticket in steerage does not begin to compensate me as volunteer. It is no benefit to me or for me. It is rude and crude to suggest, must less legislate, that it is.
My position has not changed in these many years because the same response offends reason and conscience. It is for the At-Large constituents to pick representatives. And this seemingly Pavlovian response proffered is and remains a bad policy idea. It is inimical to the spirit of volutarism - real voluntarism! - that premises the At-Large engagement.
Best, -Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 9:16 AM John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> wrote: I would like us all to consider consequences for ATLASIII participants who travel but do not participate (excepting reasons of illness etc). This is a serious, professional responsibility and should be treated as such.
For a start, I would suggest that participants who fail to participate should be ineligible for funding and elections for 3 years.
I look forward to conversation on this topic leading to action by the ALAC.
Sent from my Pixel 3XL
John Laprise, Ph.D. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.