JFC Morfin wrote:
At 17:37 16/07/2008, Ross Rader wrote:
Evan Leibovitch wrote:
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.
I don't see this as a staff push. My slightly uninvolved view is that this emanates mostly from the GNSO Council where constituency interests contend that their work is so important that they absolutely must have travel funding. Perhaps Alan could shed some better light on the issue, as I've not been directly involved in the Council for the better part of a year.
May be a stupid question, but what has GNSO to do with ALAC? 90% of the ALAC concerns are out of the GNSO scope. I think his point is that the constituencies that make up GNSO -- most of which already have financial motivations to be involved -- are whining that they want a piece of the travel pie. After all, if RALO chairs and secretariats qualify for funding, certainly the International Chamber of Commerce deserves funding too; it's only fair.
Or so the story goes. - Evan