Evan and all, Seems like alot of whining to me. Seems rather obvious that if we ( INEGroup ) can come up with funding for our members whom wish to attend to do so, than it is no more difficult for the ALAC to do so as well. Frankly, I believe ICANN has in this area been far to kind and considerate to even pay for staff members traveling expenses. Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Alan Greenberg wrote:
There have been three business oriented constituencies in ICANN from the start (that is, since constituencies came into being) - Commercial and Business users, ISPs and Intellectual Property. I guess my point of view is that the BC and IPC really are one and the same. That they were allowed to form as two constituencies, regardless of the mechanics of how it happened, still serves to dilute the role of the public-interest groups.
The fact remains that, even without funding, the business and contracted communities manage to show up in force at every ICANN meeting.
Not quite accurate. In Delhi (admittedly an extreme case), the business and contracted party constituencies of the GNSO Council were missing 6 of their 15 Councillors. 1 Registry, 2 Registrar, and all three IP. Perhaps one or two of these were for personal reasons, but money was the driver.
And yet 60% oshowed up, under the most extreme case.
At the other extreme, I'd be curious to know the attendee breakdown last year in L.A.
By contrast, how much of At-Large could attend ICANN meetings -- even in L.A. -- without funding?
Surely many of those associated with Internet-driven businesses are at ICANN funded by their employers. But there are others who pay their own way, and who must make up the time away from their businesses (particularly true for some lawyers with firms who worship only billable hours). Sorry, but that's not a useful rebuttal. There are significant numbers of lawyers and consultants who come to meetings in the hope of landing new business, either directly through contacts or indirectly through building of career-related expertise. (Since registration is free, attending ICANN may be cheaper for some than attending a conventional business or academic conference.) Even though they may not be officially paid to affect policy, it is still in their direct financial interest (and a deductible business expense) to attend. And law firms have been known to cut slack to associates' time that, while not billable, can be directly attributed to landing new clients.
The number of legal and business reps who attend ICANN without treating their trips as a business expense can probably be counted on one hand.
In any case, to me this is more about cutting At-Large resources than it is about complaining about other constituencies. If ICANN staff chose to elevate the SOs level of travel funding without touching the vision of At-Large, I would hardly be so vocal.
- Evan
------ 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, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827