Alejandro, regarding #1, According to https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-fy19-opplan-budget-questions-responses-13feb18-en.pdf , #13, CROP was eliminated this year, to compensate for the higher costs of the ICANN meeting locations and in order to not reduce the number of funded travellers to ICANN meetings. Of course, once it is gone this year, it will be easy to not restart it even if meeting costs go down.

When the meeting strategy group said we should travel to various parts of the world and not just use hub cities, I do not think that they understood that this might be a result. Perhaps the answer would be different if it was understood.

One can ask lots of questions here, about what other parts of ICANN are having reduced travel funding. At the same time, the overall SO/AC budget was cut in half, and that is another source that has been used for travel in the past.

Your Question #2 is key. Can we show that there were real benefits from past CROP(P) trips. And of course I mean not only for LACRALO but other RALOs and other parts of ICANN as well.

Alan

At 14/02/2018 04:55 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote:

Subject:Re:  CROP
quitado del presupuesto de ICANN
Desde:"Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch"
<
apisan at unam.mx>


Hello,

There is so much that can not be understood if it is not understood that
Leon was already exposed to the limit with what he wrote ...

Preparing the community for the undeniable possibility that the
counterpart has arguments:

1.
What effect does the cancellation of the program have?
less travel or just less bureaucracy? If travel is reduced,
Is it the cancellation effect of the program or a budgetary
readjustment?

2. if you were to argue in defense of the program,
What would be the essential points of your contribution that would stand
out? What I record by heart is the incorporation of ONE Haitian
organization that can be attributed to the CROP (P) activity of Alberto
Sot. And during the years that CROPP was in force,
in what did LACRALO improve as part of ICANN? (as a reference: the
situation of LACRALO reached the point of requiring the intervention of
two professional mediators, one year after its inception remains
unfinished).And the participation of a sub-region that has the most votes
has practically vanished in that same year.

3. punctually,
What can be noted as an increase in LACRALO interventions in the ICANN
PDPs attributable to CROPP?
what other objectives of the program were satisfied, and could not be
without it?

Objective arguments for greater success, if possible.

Alejandro Pisanty