Dear Dharma: Many thanks for your thoughtful and detailed response. I think we can all agree that the ambition of the ICANN model - that every stakeholder should have a 'way in' to make their views heard - is a worthy ambition. Of course, it is as you say very hard to actually make this a reality on a routine basis for all stakeholders and ambitious goals like this are in some sense like life - the journey's the point; the end is never really reached. I believe that we are trying to 'level the playing field' for participation by the individual Internet user interest in ICANN. For many years now, this community has received a concentration of resources of all kinds which in many respects is much greater than that provided to any other stakeholder group, precisely because there's an awareness that for broad civil society representation to exist, different kinds of support systems and structures are necessary than are required for participation by (for example) interests who have a core commercial interest in participating. The financial resources dedicated to At-Large over the years are in the millions, as you know. There is a continuing commitment - At-Large currently has more dedicated staff exclusively serving the community than the GNSO, for example - and the recent decision to fund a Summit of all ALSes is another example. The informational resources being made available are increasingly, I think, useful - our website is continually being improved (and it is the most modern site in the ICANN.org system); introductions to issues are now available in short documents that are easy-to-read (something that this community (among others) asked for; meetings and teleconferences have interpretation provided (I know it isn't always technically wonderful, but we are doing all we can), and increasingly documents are provided in multiple languages. The At-Large staff is also taking the lead in organising briefings on the issues so that in an hour, a layperson can learn what is actually meant by 'fast flux' and why and how it is being debated, for example. I am not saying all this as an attempt to persuade you that you should not hold to the views you have on travel, or that the issues you raise about travel aren't significant, or that ICANN is doing all it can do. I am saying that I believe ICANN is trying to increase its support for At-Large overall. We're also trying to support other communities in their efforts at participation, and of course the relative levels of support offered will never make everyone happy. There are only so many dollars to go around. I would note that the fellowship programme is designed (and has been expanded this year) to help ensure that more participants from various communities who are from developing countries are able to attend ICANN meetings. At Cheryl's request, I am working out a time when Doug and Denise are available to discuss the travel policy with any members of the community who wish to attend - we're aiming for next week. I hope that you will make the time to join and make your points about community development directly. On 14/08/2008 06:18, "Dharma Dailey" <dharma@ethoswireless.com> wrote: Dear Nick and All, This issue of travel funding heralds the confusion that I have with trying to be an active participant in NARALO. I suppose since ICANN solicited membership in this body, it was seen as serving a function within ICANN for At-Large to exist. But there seems to be inconsistency and lack of clarity about what is required to make At- Large a fully featured contributing member of the ICANN community. My understanding is as follows: At-Large in its present iteration is one in a series of attempts by ICANN to solicit participation of individuals and entities who "represent internet users." At-Large is intended to bring in people who are outside of the loop of the vested interests that perpetually and justifiably make up the majority of people participating in ICANN- those whose livelihoods are based around registries and domains. All parties will concede, I think, that recruitment, retention, and integration into ICANN processes of folks without a vested financial or career interest in ICANN outcomes turns out to be no small task. I have limited experience working within international governance bodies, so I can't speak to best practices regarding travel allowances. But I do have tons of experience working on all-volunteer and mostly volunteer community technology projects. My experience as an organizer on such projects is that, without fail, integrating people who represent aspects of a community that reaches beyond the usual suspects always requires more time, more money, more initiative, and more emotional fortitude than one ever anticipates. There are a series of cultural learning curves that need to take place from all parties before At-Large can work together more functionally and within ICANN more functionally. On the flip side, speaking as volunteer who has in turn been "organized" by ICANN, I am still waiting to see what value, if any, there is to being a participant in the ICANN community. Is there any benefit I can bring back to Community Networks in North America based on involvement in NARALO? So far, I feel that the only outcome of my participation to date, the signing of the NARALO agreement, benefited ICANN in a one-sided way. Our signatures can be used by ICANN as proof positive that an American based corporation has the right to take on a piece of development that is sensitive for the entire world. However, if participation by Community Networks is nulled by vagaries of funding, by vagaries of priorities, by lack of clarity of what value we *could* bring to ICANN- I would have to say that my participation is actually causing harm to the groups I work with and work for. Integrating such an all volunteer group of unusual suspects into an entity as large and tentacled as ICANN compounds the challenge by a few orders of magnitude. Volunteer based work has its own pace -- much slower - than when a paycheck is involved. ICANN has done a good job of getting talented and varied volunteer groups from across the globe, but the body as a whole still needs development. Development still equals some combination of time, talent and money. Time and talent need to come both from ICANN and from the RALOs. Money needs to come from ICANN. I believe that a timeline of less than 5 years for development of At-Large is unrealistic. (From my reckoning NARALO is just beginning year two.) It is very very difficult, some argue impossible, to hash out a working plan, do strategic work, or figure out how to get along with colleagues when one is not actually sitting across from them. Current thinking on project management- at least among those I've talked to such as Dr. Pepper at Cisco who is promoting some very fancy high end teleconferencing technology -- is that at the inception of a project people need to meet face to face, in person, early, and often. Once good working relationships are established, strategy and mission are well defined, and a working plan is in hand, technology can take over. ICANN can certainly choose who gets to meet, who doesn't, and how often, but "progress"- however defined- will likely happen one meeting at a time. If all stakeholders are not present, progress stalls or even dies. If money is saved on travel but yet another iteration of At-large tanks ICANN is penny wise and pound foolish. The first order question is not how much should we spend on travel this year, but how do we develop and maintain, over a realistic period of time, a dedicated, talented, and diverse At-Large community which rounds out what's missing in the rest of ICANN. -Dharma Dailey Emerging Futures Network On Aug 2, 2008, at 11:25 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
I thought you would wish to know that the travel policy referred to inferentially in the Board resolution in Paris has not yet been finalised, and therefore there has been no decision (one way or the other) to change the travel for At-Large as defined immediately below, so you may wish to keep the draft, when completed, 'in your pocket' as it were until the decision is announced. Or, of course, you could phrase it in such a way as to take account of the non- finalised-state of the policy.
So noted.
I would remind you all that I have on many occasions stated that the situation pre-FY2009, in which:
At-Large received travel funding for 35 people to each meeting; Nominating Committee appointees received travel support All other communities received no funding
Was going to change when a policy for volunteers was adopted, and that the result of that policy would almost certainly result in some level of travel support for those heretofore receiving none, and less support for those heretofore receiving the most.
Reminding everyone multiple times of imminent bad policy does not somehow render the policy less bad when it eventually happens.
Also, telling this to us on multiple occasions does not -- at least to me -- indicate any level of consultation; rather, it indicates the change asserted as a done deal, made by bureaucrats, with no solicitation of impact from those it is effecting. This is a most un-transparent process.
That ICANN believes that its "underfunded constituencies" -- the IP lawyers, government bureaucrats and contracted parties -- require its subsidy, is a matter of pure amazement. That such funding should come as a result of reducing support to At-Large and the NomComm -- two bodies of ICANN's own creation designed to represent the "greater good" amongst all the self-interests -- goes beyond amazement into disbelief.
I also said pretty clearly on multiple occasions that if the Summit proposal was approved, there would certainly be a reduction in the travel support for the community to the other two meetings during the financial year (no 'doubling up' of support).
That was understood by everyone and you knew this. There was a target for which we were aiming that every ALS member would have one opportunity per year for F2F, whether at a nearby ICANN meeting or a smaller regional event. A Summit to which all ALSs were invited would satisfy the target for that year. (For instance, as a Summit is happening in 2009 there is NO expectation that any other regional F2F take place that year.) However, everyone has also made it clear that the Summit is a one-time event, but that the funding cutoff of ALSs to attend regional meetings would be an ongoing policy that would long outlast the Summit year. Uncertainty about the Summit time and place means, for instance that there will be no ALS FSF meeting in the Americas this year.
And again, stating something repeatedly does not make it right, and it certainly does not constitute any form of consultation.
This is not by way of trying to suggest that you should not make any points on the subject you feel should be made - on the contrary, you should say what you think should be said.
And that has indeed been done. We have submitted a position (attached) to the President's Committee on Increasing Institutional Confidence. (http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#iic-consultation), as was discussed at the last NARALO conference call.
In terms of direct comment on the travel policy, to whom should we address any formal comments? So far the conversation has all been top-down (with you telling us it was going to happen)... there is no defined process or channel for our comments. What do you suggest?
One thing about the contents I would suggest you modify - the EURALO GA met for the first time in Paris, but the EURALO itself has met several times previously using ICANN travel support. You may wish to modify that line in the statement to make it more accurate.
Clarification: If the GA only met for the first time in Paris, then it was only a subset of EURALO -- its exec -- that has met before. And the MOU was formalized in Paris. So in reality, the entire EURALO did indeed meet only for the first time this year; everything before that was prep and informal.
Still, your point is taken, and I would be happy to make an appropriate clarification to the submission. Unfortunately, Kieren told me that the deadline for the ICC process was eight hours before your comment was sent -- believe me, there would have been many more changes to the doc had we been given a few more days. If you could put in a good word with Kieren to allow this minor change it would be appreciated.
- Evan
<NARALO submission to PSC.doc>------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------ -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart