Danny, I was physically present at the ALAC meeting referenced in your comment on Community Travel Support Guidelines. My presence there was accidental, as a resignation had taken place in the very recent past, creating a re-allocation-or-loss question, and the applicant support policy was "of the moment", and so the support was offered to me. The set of incidences goes further, as for personal reasons it was both a difficult decision to make, and it resulted in an out of pocket expense of some significance, to repace myself in the caretaker role I was engaged in prior to travel to Singapore. My presence there was further accidental in that while I was not a quora-capable person, the process of the ALAC executive and the set of substantive issues, which included a vote on a resolution relating to the co-operaton of the GAC and ALAC on the applicant support issue, did interest me, so I was present. There were circumstances -- the bathrooms were several minutes distant, and to get from the ALAC (and GAC) rooms involved passing through the distraction rich vendor exhibit area. Bladder control, schmoozing with GAC member, schmoozing with the better or worse of the for-profit actors, and the location and social cost of coffee (see "schmoozing", above) are credible -- to me -- explinations of the absence in the first minutes of the second (or third) of a back-to-back meeting schedule. But assuming no credible excuse or bad faith on the part of those not available for form a quora in the first minutes of that meeting, your means to compel a cure has consequences. I would not be here, and what ever little I've personally managed to initiate, support, enhance, detract, or stop, relaing to applicant support, I would not have been able to accomplish, had I chosen not to accept the complex personal cost of participation, or had the travel support not been re-allocated, or simply not available to be allocated. If I thought my week without merit, I would say so, as I really do have other demands on my time in the present -- elder care pre- and post- major surgery, care for my profoundly autistic pre-teen son, academic work, farm work, co-op work, and simply not sweating bullets when out of doors. I can't agree with the recommendation to impose a moratorium on all at-large travel support. I wouldn't agree with it even if I thought a quorum call had been missed by deliberate, reflected choice, as I know that some persons I know better than others who do receive travel support more regularly than I (another loss of primary travel support recipient allowed me to attend the Cartagena meeting, where my primary interest was expanding the protection of informed consent or expression of non-opposition to non-capital municipal administrations) are working as hard or harder than I am during the 8 or so days of face to face meetings with others, not from the At Large Advisory Committee, who are engaged in policy work. To be very blunt, given the efficacy of policy advocates who have material support over those that do not, and here my point of view is one informed by having material support in 2000/2001, 2002, 2004, and 2007-2010, representing the advoacy interests of NeuSar, several funded .org and .net redelgation applicant efforts, a registrar, and a registrar-also-registry-platform operator, no meaningful "public interest advocacy" would be possible under the restriction proposed. It is a fact that presence and persistence in that presence is more determinative of outcomes than any other alternative. I'd like to see ICANN limit the number of bodies vendors can staff their advocacy efforts with, before cutting the public interest travel support, if some travel support reform is to be made. Thank you for your time in reading this rather lengthy, and more than usually personalized public note of difference to a public comment, the legitimacy of which I question not at all. Eric