Hi everyone

Just joining in because I too was curious about the number of funded travel slots that the ALAC has, to attend ICANN meetings.

The ccNSO has 12 slots while the ALAC has 27. These are used for the 15 members of the ALAC, 10 Regional Leaders (Chairs and Vice Chairs of the five RALOs), and 2 Liaisons (GNSO and ccNSO Liaisons. Cheryl is currently the GNSO liaison, and although I am already funded as an ALAC member, we have not been able to get permission from ICANN to use the spare slot that is currently not being used by the ccNSO liaison, for any other purpose. So the slot stays vacant)

Alan tells me that over the last 8 years, the GNSO has gone from 20 to 45 funded slots because they made a case that they needed to fund some of their constituency leaders (similar to our RALO leaders in ALAC) - and that was regardless of whether they could afford to pay for themselves or not.

The efficiency of AC/SO decision making is reliant on leaders being able to attend and participate in this role at face to face meetings which they should be funded to attend. Alan agrees that the ccNSO should at least ask and put it into this round of budget applications.

My 2c :)

Maureen

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:

About a year ago, we had some informal discussions with Xavier that
was aimed at understanding the requirements on the Council for
the allocation of resources for funding Council members and others
to ICANN meetings.

Strangely (to me) this turned out to not be predicated on on a budget, but on 'per seat' basis. Two questions arise from this answer :-

- what requirement (e.g. from Finance or ICANN Board) is there on the ccNSO to allocate funds differentially between different classes of members

- where does the differential between ccNSO number of seats and (e.g.) ALAC and GAC come from?

This inquiry fell by the wayside.

I wish to suggest a small informal meeting in CPH including Chair or one of the Vice-Chairs, and myself (since I've been doing the research) and one other Council Member (perhaps from LAC or Africa?).

Situation has worked, by-and-large, this last few years, largely becuase of the support given from large registries who do not need travel support for their elected Councillors.

But I can see it could inhibit good candidates from developing regions and also small
registries in other regions.

On the assumption Council continues to approve of this line of inquiry, I shall see if I can arrange something.

Council is asked if it objects to this further inquiry