Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
Also - I'm not an US native, so my understanding of the nuances of the language may be different. There was no "willful intent to impose control" - at least how I think you mean that phrase. Of course I may have a different understanding...
Hello Jaqueline, What I meant by "imposing control" is simple (and I'm not a US native either ;-) ); The ALSs expressed a preference to have a meeting in Vancouver, and that meeting did not happen. I certainly heard no indication that ICANN would support travel expenses for that meeting, so I know that we could not attend. Now, ICANN staff proposes a meeting in New York, and the ONLY reason (that I can determine) offered for this particular choice of date and location was that someone was making meeting space available at that tine. This is, to me, one of the silliest, least important reasons to have a meeting at a particular time or place. The availability and readiness of participants is infinitely more important than the availability of meeting space (which can be rented). The setting of a specific time/place, before consulting any of the people intended to be there, is what I consider to be a form of crontrol. The suggestion that travel subsidy is available for New York, when it appeared to have been unavailable for Vancouver, enforces a belief that ICANN is pushing its own agenda and timing over that which is preferred by the participants themselves. If there is truly no intent to control, then ICANN must fully support the meeting plans determined by the ALSs themselves, which includes travel expense support where requested. I have seen admirable prudence in the activities here so far, nobody is rushing to spend ICANN's travel budget needlessly. So when we (the ALSs) say a meeting is needed, it is incumbent on ICANN to support such plans if there is truly an intent to support our activities and not control them. This means eliminating -- definitely -- the budget uncertainties regarding travel subsidy. - Evan