Danny Younger wrote:
You are at liberty to make the case that the at-large deserves more dollars than other constituent bodies. I would argue that those who do the work are to be rewarded, while those that accomplish almost nothing should receive almost nothing.
Danny, you can't suck and blow at the same time. In your counter-proposal to Summit funding you advocated a formula that refused to fund anyone that had so much as participated in an email discussion, subsidizing only the silent ones. Now you magically argue for just the opposite. Both arguments, seemingly changing in tune with the tides, are critically flawed. They're not only mind-boggingly inconsistent, they're simply wrong. At-Large is a body explicitly designed to find people and organizations who are not already deeply versed in policy, to bring them to a sufficient level of awareness and then to extract opinion. During the last NARALO conference call -- that Danny supposedly attended -- a number of people clearly indicated that they are intimidated by the lingo and the elitism that serves as a barrier to effective participation by newcomers. Some by nature are hesitant to participate in discussions dominated by those who are more .... assertive. Others who are unsure of their positions simply choose not to participate for fear of embarrassing themselves. That does not mean they cannot contribute or that their views are not worth hearing. It means that this particular form of communications does not work for all. The face to face meetings afforded by travel subsidy is another form of communications, less frequent but extremely effective. It's been my experience that some people simply work better when they can put faces to email addresses and look people in the eye as they're talking. The occasional smile helps too. As for other constituent bodies, they have vested interests to protect, interests that are generally well-financed. Lacking such vested interests, At-Large will almost by definition not match the resources of the other constituencies. So the choice is either providing resources, or silencing At-Large (with the exception of squeaky wheels such as Danny; this explains why he wants to cut funding to us no matter which rationale-of-the-day he uses, -- silencing all these poor, uninformed policy pretenders leaves more of the stage to him). One size does not fit all. I prefer not to shut out people whose views have been under-represented simply because the current forms of ICANN communications are badly suited to them. So I will continue to advocate for support for a process that is an inclusive and diverse as possible. - Evan