Ross Rader wrote:
I think it is more important to know who is receiving funding than how much. 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. That's certainly fair.
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. This is what bothers me about the unexplained push for "equity" in the new travel regime. ALAC and NCUC are amongst the only organized participants in ICANN that are neither governments nor financial interests. As such ALAC and NCUC members cannot themselves justify travel based on business expense. The same holds true of NomComm appointees, who are chosen to represent the "greater good" and as such also have neither the financial interest nor the cost justification for travelling to attend.
The apparent staff obsession to fund constituencies that don't need the subsidy, at the expense of those who do, is what I consider worrisome. Why do I say this is a staff drive? There's been absolutely no consultation with the affected parties in advance -- certainly nobody asked our RALO or my ALS, and we're directly impacted. Also, as our Board Liaison reported in the NARALO conference call, there was absolutely no Board debate on the last-minute change that removed the ALAC exemption from the new travel policy. The entire process smells of having been manipulated in a most un-transparent way. And if staff isn't manipulating this process, who is? Who else could? My personal suggestion at this time -- and one that was endorsed at the NARALO conference call -- was to consider making this horrible exclusion of public particpation part of a submission to the President's public consultations on Improving Institutional Confidence (part of the JPA process) http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#iic-consultation http://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/index.htm The modification of the travel policy, in such a way as to badly -- possibly critically -- reduce the public voice within ICANN while funding business interests, should certainly be of interest to the US DOC as well as ICANN's Board. So should the completely untransparent manner in which all of this came about. The effect of such actions to undermine public confidence can (and should) be easily understood and documented. Anyone interested in assisting with the task of drafting such a statement, before the first-draft deadline of the end of this month, is invited to contact me. - Evan