Hello Darlene, Thank you for raising this issue. I stand in favor of no travel funding whatsoever for ALS representatives. I make this remark in view of the fact that I have seen all other constituent bodies operating without ICANN funding, and these constituencies manage to function on-line, have regular teleconferences, engage in fact-finding and produce substantive recommendations. The ALSs can do the same without the need for subsidies. When we offer subsidies to one set of noncommercial players while denying them to others (such as the NCUC members) then we are blatantly discriminating. I see no substantial and reasonable cause to justify such discrimination. --- "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson@gov.nu.ca> wrote:

Hi all,

Here is one of the things that the Secretariats will be discussing in LA and I would like to get NA feedback before I'm there "representing" us. Here it is:

"Currently, ICANN's budget provides that funding exists for approximately 18-20 persons from the At-Large community from the region each ICANN meeting is held in to attend the meeting. This has to the present day been used to sponsor one representative of each ALS in attending, but as the community grows this will not be sustainable.

ICANN would like the input of the Secretariats about what kind of travel support is actually useful to support policy work. Would 'means testing' - requiring active engagement by community members in order to receive travel support, for example - be useful to increase participation? Would more regional ALS meetings be a better use of the funds? Is a hybrid approach of some regional meetings and some ICANN meetings sensible?

In addition, this track of work is meant to discuss the idea for an At-Large Summit. What could it achieve, and how? Is such a meeting the only way to achieve certain objectives - and if so, which ones?"

So, I would like your contribution into this issue. I, for one, will be asking for more regional input into HOW these funds are spent. Note - not ALAC input but our own region's input. But this is only part of what we will be discussing. So, if you have any thoughts, please forward them to me or discuss them on the list so that I will know which way we want to take this.

Thank you,

D

Darlene A. Thompson

Community Access Program Administrator

Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP

c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910

Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0

Phone: (867) 975-6531

Fax: (867) 979-8870

dthompson@gov.nu.ca

...

------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org

http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...

Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ ------

____________________________________________________________________________________ Catch up on fall's hot new shows on Yahoo! TV. Watch previews, get listings, and more! http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/3658

ICANN would like the input of the Secretariats about what kind of travel support is actually useful to support policy work. Would ‘means testing’ – requiring active engagement by community members in order to receive travel support, for example – be useful to increase participation?

I'm concerned about this wording because it suggests that ICANN wants At-Large to suggest a means test that staff would then implement. I am not in favour of any approach that gives staff the power of discretion and interpretation. I would prefer a budget process in which: 1) The Board determines how much it will spend on At-Large (in consultation with At-Large) 2) At-Large determines how the allocation be spent on staff/education/travel 3) After the travel budget is determined, each region selects the ALSs that can be subsidized based on published criteria and available funds 4) when possible, local registries and other bodies will be approached to sponsor additional travel with the support and sanction of ICANN Note: I specifically did not indicate whether "At-Large" means ALSs, RALOs or ALAC. I am not yet sure how this should happen and am eager to hear different points of view on the relevance of ALAC in this process. My personal hope is that the ALAC review will result in a body that is both more accountable to the RALOs and more responsible (for issues such as budget, which it can now conveniently ignore). The current process of having RALOs only attend ICANN meetings is problematic as long as ICANN maintains a policy of having its meetings in cities that are not major airline hubs, rotated in an uneven, unequitable manner. Just look at our own situation -- two ICANN meetings in North America this year (of which only one had travel offered), then nothing until October 2010.

Would more regional ALS meetings be a better use of the funds? Is a hybrid approach of some regional meetings and some ICANN meetings sensible?

IMO regional meetings should be called for, when there is no ICANN meeting in a region or Summit that year.

In addition, this track of work is meant to discuss the idea for an At-Large Summit. What could it achieve, and how? Is such a meeting the only way to achieve certain objectives – and if so, which ones?”

Having a Summit -- an event every two years with a known process -- will offer at least a little balance to the instability of the current policy. It is not even an absolute requirement that a Summit happen alongside regular ICANN meetings. - Evan