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
Eric, Thank you for your comment. ICANN has previously found itself confronting the reality that sometimes individuals will attempt to take advantage of the organization's largesse. I point you to a prior Ombudsman's report as one example of such behaviors -- see http://www.icann.org/ombudsman/documents/repayment-expenses-report-17sep08.p... To deal with such considerations, most organizations establish policies that serve to guard against possible abuses. I have called for the establishment of such a policy within ALAC, and I well understand that when one openly criticizes an organization, the typical organizational response is a concerted effort to circle the wagons, to adopt a bunker mentality and to declare that everything is just dandy within the group. So be it. My primary concern, of course, relates to whether work is actually getting done, or if we're looking at folks just going through the motions on ICANN's dime. Obviously, I expect those that are travel fund recipients to be present at those meeetings that have been scheduled and to complete whatever assignments they have accepted. ...and yes, I too have attended multiple ICANN meetings and am clearly aware that circumstances can arise. Matters, of course, are complicated by the ALAC's informality. Almost all other ICANN organizations will begin their sessions with a roll call, with a notation regarding apologies conveyed, proxies tendered, etc. As such does not transpire within ALAC meetings, remote participants are unaware of circumstances that may have precluded participation. All we know is that quorum was barely met with 9 out of 15 members in attendance. You are aware that at every ICANN session ALAC members and associates are asked to report to the community on the meetings that they have attended. It's now the end of the week, and just like the last time around (and the time before that) there are almost no reports from these meeting participants (the sole exceptions are the contributions that I have noted from Darlene and Dev) -- see https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Singapore+18.06.11+Meeting+Repor... -- this indeed makes one wonder whether any "work" is really being done. Similarly, when you take the time to review the ALAC's Working Group archives, you will also note that almost no work is being done in those environments either. Feel free to compare the level of dialogue therein with that to be found in any typical GNSO Working Group. Neither is substantive discussion occuring on the primary ALAC mailing list -- it's a wasteland almost totally devoid of commentary. In my estimation, the closest that the ALAC as organization comes to "working" arises in the context of Statement preparation. The ALAC will hand a "pen" to one of its members to compose a draft statement (and it's usually the same small group of people that hold this pen). When the draft is produced and submitted we then wait for comments which almost never materialize. This is followed by the Chair asking for discussion at an ALAC session (and of course, there is almost never any discussion). The matter is then put to a vote (almost always unanimous), and voila! ALAC work-product is achieved. When I consider the fact that the Expense Area Grouping (EAG) reports At-Large and ALAC Support Activities budgeted at $5,427,000, I ask myself if we are getting five million dollars worth of service out of this At-Large endeavor. Sorry, but I'm just not seeing the ROI. Recently the NARALO addressed the issue of pre-registrations, a topic area that could have been worthy of a WG effort, or which at the very least should have been worthy of some sustained discussion within the ALAC itself. Our concerns certainly could have been raised to members of the Board, but of course I saw no mention of this regional issue in the Chair's report. Of what value then is a regional construct if these matters are not recognized and/or transmitted? Suffice it to say that I have heard the ALAC Chair announce that ALAC members are working very, very hard... sorry, but I just don't see it that way. A few certainly go above and beyond, but collectively the end-result is far from what I would deem to be acceptable. When I consider the history of ICANN and its various constructs I note that ICANN has certainly terminated some of its constituenct elements before (the PSO is gone, the DNSO General Assembly is gone), and we have withstood these changes without incident. As such, I remain of the view that the entirety of the at-large could easily be parked within the non-commercial house of the GNSO (as almost all ALSs are either non-commercial orgs or individuals) at tremendous cost-savings to the organization. At least within that body I would have confidence that ICANN's work would get done and that funds expended would be well spent. In closing, I look at it this way... The ALAC has a choice. It can maintain that all is rosy and that those subsidized to attend are all duly engaged in work, or it can assure us all of such by adopting a policy that would serve to limit any possible future inappropriate behaviors. There has long been a perception that funded at-large participants care more about tourism than about ICANN, and I don't believe that I'm the only one that has had these thoughts. The ALAC can address this preception by taking appropriate measures, or it can assert that nothing is wrong and that no policy is needed. Whatever the case may turn out to be, as complaints such as mine have a way of taking on a life of their own, I will refrain from further remarks on the subject. Again, thanks for your considered remarks. Danny
On 24 June 2011 11:48, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> wrote:
I well understand that when one openly criticizes an organization, the typical organizational response is a concerted effort to circle the wagons, to adopt a bunker mentality and to declare that everything is just dandy within the group. So be it.
Heaven knows At-Large is the target of plenty of criticism. A good amount of it has been constructive, and leads to better operations, better policy, and indeed constant self-analysis and evolution. And some is needlessly distracting, and obsess with disenfranchisement at a time when quality volunteer person-hours are so hard to come by. The response is predicable because the complaint is familiar, repetitive, and unchanging in the face of At-Large's substantial and high-profile evolutionary achievements. Of course improvement is always possible and the infrastructure is still in evolution. The self-evaluation process continues to be an integral part of At-Large activity at and between ICANN meetings. The money spent on At-Large by ICANN pales next to the value of the time and expertise provided by its participants, most of whom incur out-of-pocket expense to augment ICANN's resources both in travel and other areas. I make no apologies for our reduced level of formality, for it provides an atmosphere that enables participants to cut through the clutter of excessive process to actually get things done. Achievements such as forcing applicant support into the gTLD agenda are nothing to apologize for, and if making that process easier to traverse means the participants wear bunny ears to meetings, then so be it. We do what we can, in moving forward while engaging in constant self-improvement along the way. Yet some will continue to disparage individual efforts from a convenient distance, using stale arguments that haven't changed significantly since ALAC was all-appointed, while themselves refusing to step up and match the standards they set for others. So be it. Just don't expect me to take such complaints seriously. Even this response, in retrospect, seems a waste of useful volunteer time and energy better spent elsewhere. I'll be far more frugal in the future when dealing with such distractions. - Evan
participants (3)
-
Danny Younger -
ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net -
Evan Leibovitch