Michael and all, If I may suggest again, your best bet is to set up a travel fund where members can contribute and seek additional funding if needed from other public/private interest groups. Personally, I fully agree with ICANN's decision in this instance. No freeloaders, deadbeats, or less financially personally responsible, is always a wise policy. Michael Maranda wrote:

Well done on the document. We (AFCN) fully support this statement. I hope other RALOs join the statement or offer similar.

re: concluding sentence ... .charade/facade ... maybe pick one?

MM

On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson@gov.nu.ca>wrote:

...

Hi all,

During the meetings in Paris is came to light that the Board put through a resolution to reduce ALAC's travel. This was slipped through and didn't even follow the wording in the "Draft Travel Support Procedure" document of May 22, 2008. We owe a huge THANK YOU to Alan Greenburg for catching this as neither Evan nor I nor the rest of the ALAC caught this when it happened. The affects of these cuts to the ALAC travel would mean:

1. Only ½ of the ALAC would be funded for travel for meetings – the rest would have to self-fund 2. No Secretariats or Chairs attending meetings 3. No travel support for ALSs to attend regional meetings.

Therefore, it was decided during the last NARALO telephone conference that we convene a mini-WG (comprised of Gareth Shearman, Evan and myself) to come up with a formal response. We have drafted the attached document. Please have a look at this ASAP and get back to us (on or before Friday, August 8, 2008) with any changes or additions you might like OR stating that you do not support it at all (as we must have consensus).

Thank you,

D

ᑕᓕᓐ ᑕᒻᓴᓐ

ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓂ ᖃᕆᓴᐅᔭᕐᕕᒋᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᑐᓄᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑎ

ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᖅᕕᖓᑦ

ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ

ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᖓᑦ

ᑎᑎᖅᑲᓂᐊᕐᕕᖓ 1000, ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᖓ 910

ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ

dthompson@gov.nu.ca

ᐅᖄᓚᐅᑎ: 867 975-5631

ᓱᑲᑦᑐᒃᑰᕈᑎ: 867 975-5610

Taliin Taamsan

Nunalingni

Qaritauyani Atuqtauningitnun Titiraqtia Nunavut Kavamangat

Titiraqarvia 1000,

Nayugaa 910

Iqaluit, Nunavut

dthompson@gov.nu.ca

Hivayautik : 867 975-5631

Kayumiktuk : 867 975-5610

Darlene Thompson

Community Access Program Administrator

Corporate Services Division

Department of Education

Government of Nunavut

PO Box 1000, Station 910

Iqaluit, Nunavut, X0A 0H0

dthompson@gov.nu.ca

Ph: 867 975-5631

Fax: 867 975-5610

Darlene Thompson

Administratrice du programme d'accès communautaire

Division des services ministériels

Ministère de l'Éducation

Gouvernement du Nunavut

Case postale 1000, Succursale 910

Iqaluit Nunavut, X0A 0H0

dthompson@gov.nu.ca

Tél. : 867 975-5631

Téléc. : 867 975-5610

------ 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 ------

------ 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

Sorry, Michael, now you get to read it again! ;) Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca <mailto:dthompson@gov.nu.ca> ________________________________ From: tropology@gmail.com [mailto:tropology@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Michael Maranda Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 10:07 AM To: Thompson, Darlene Cc: ALAC NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] New Travel Policy - **IMPORTANT** Well done on the document. We (AFCN) fully support this statement. I hope other RALOs join the statement or offer similar. re: concluding sentence ... .charade/facade ... maybe pick one? MM On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson@gov.nu.ca> wrote: Hi all, During the meetings in Paris is came to light that the Board put through a resolution to reduce ALAC's travel. This was slipped through and didn't even follow the wording in the "Draft Travel Support Procedure" document of May 22, 2008. We owe a huge THANK YOU to Alan Greenburg for catching this as neither Evan nor I nor the rest of the ALAC caught this when it happened. The affects of these cuts to the ALAC travel would mean: 1. Only ½ of the ALAC would be funded for travel for meetings – the rest would have to self-fund 2. No Secretariats or Chairs attending meetings 3. No travel support for ALSs to attend regional meetings. Therefore, it was decided during the last NARALO telephone conference that we convene a mini-WG (comprised of Gareth Shearman, Evan and myself) to come up with a formal response. We have drafted the attached document. Please have a look at this ASAP and get back to us (on or before Friday, August 8, 2008) with any changes or additions you might like OR stating that you do not support it at all (as we must have consensus). Thank you, D ᑕᓕᓐ ᑕᒻᓴᓐ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓂ ᖃᕆᓴᐅᔭᕐᕕᒋᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᑐᓄᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑎ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᖅᕕᖓᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᖓᑦ ᑎᑎᖅᑲᓂᐊᕐᕕᖓ 1000, ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᖓ 910 ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ dthompson@gov.nu.ca ᐅᖄᓚᐅᑎ: 867 975-5631 ᓱᑲᑦᑐᒃᑰᕈᑎ: 867 975-5610 Taliin Taamsan Nunalingni Qaritauyani Atuqtauningitnun Titiraqtia Nunavut Kavamangat Titiraqarvia 1000, Nayugaa 910 Iqaluit, Nunavut dthompson@gov.nu.ca Hivayautik : 867 975-5631 Kayumiktuk : 867 975-5610 Darlene Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Corporate Services Division Department of Education Government of Nunavut PO Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, Nunavut, X0A 0H0 dthompson@gov.nu.ca Ph: 867 975-5631 Fax: 867 975-5610 Darlene Thompson Administratrice du programme d'accès communautaire Division des services ministériels Ministère de l'Éducation Gouvernement du Nunavut Case postale 1000, Succursale 910 Iqaluit Nunavut, X0A 0H0 dthompson@gov.nu.ca Tél. : 867 975-5631 Téléc. : 867 975-5610 ------ 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 ------

Evan and all, I don't know about the "Greater Good" part, but otherwise yes, ICANN isn't and never has been interested in paying for anything. Travel expenses not withstanding. But if you kiss up to the ICANN staff and Bod, they might be willing to toss a few $$ towards travel expenses. So sing their praises to the rafters, bring gifts, ect., and you will likely get some consideration. Evan Leibovitch wrote:

Thompson, Darlene wrote:

...

The affects of these cuts to the ALAC travel would mean:

1. Only ½ of the ALAC would be funded for travel for meetings – the rest would have to self-fund 2. No Secretariats or Chairs attending meetings 3. No travel support for ALSs to attend regional meetings.

4. Nomination Committee appointees are not exempt from this new policy. This means that ICANN can seek out the people it thinks can best serve the "greater good" on various committees, only to tell them that they may have to pay their own way.

- 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

Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:

I thought you would wish to know that the travel policy referred to inferentially in the Board resolution in Paris has not yet been finalised, and therefore there has been no decision (one way or the other) to change the travel for At-Large as defined immediately below, so you may wish to keep the draft, when completed, ‘in your pocket’ as it were until the decision is announced. Or, of course, you could phrase it in such a way as to take account of the non-finalised-state of the policy.

So noted.

I would remind you all that I have on many occasions stated that the situation pre-FY2009, in which:

At-Large received travel funding for 35 people to each meeting; Nominating Committee appointees received travel support All other communities received no funding

Was going to change when a policy for volunteers was adopted, and that the result of that policy would almost certainly result in some level of travel support for those heretofore receiving none, and less support for those heretofore receiving the most.

Reminding everyone multiple times of imminent bad policy does not somehow render the policy less bad when it eventually happens. Also, telling this to us on multiple occasions does not -- at least to me -- indicate any level of consultation; rather, it indicates the change asserted as a done deal, made by bureaucrats, with no solicitation of impact from those it is effecting. This is a most un-transparent process. That ICANN believes that its "underfunded constituencies" -- the IP lawyers, government bureaucrats and contracted parties -- require its subsidy, is a matter of pure amazement. That such funding should come as a result of reducing support to At-Large and the NomComm -- two bodies of ICANN's own creation designed to represent the "greater good" amongst all the self-interests -- goes beyond amazement into disbelief.

I also said pretty clearly on multiple occasions that if the Summit proposal was approved, there would certainly be a reduction in the travel support for the community to the other two meetings during the financial year (no ‘doubling up’ of support).

That was understood by everyone and you knew this. There was a target for which we were aiming that every ALS member would have one opportunity per year for F2F, whether at a nearby ICANN meeting or a smaller regional event. A Summit to which all ALSs were invited would satisfy the target for that year. (For instance, as a Summit is happening in 2009 there is NO expectation that any other regional F2F take place that year.) However, everyone has also made it clear that the Summit is a one-time event, but that the funding cutoff of ALSs to attend regional meetings would be an ongoing policy that would long outlast the Summit year. Uncertainty about the Summit time and place means, for instance that there will be no ALS FSF meeting in the Americas this year. And again, stating something repeatedly does not make it right, and it certainly does not constitute any form of consultation.

This is not by way of trying to suggest that you should not make any points on the subject you feel should be made – on the contrary, you should say what you think should be said.

And that has indeed been done. We have submitted a position (attached) to the President's Committee on Increasing Institutional Confidence. (http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#iic-consultation), as was discussed at the last NARALO conference call. In terms of direct comment on the travel policy, to whom should we address any formal comments? So far the conversation has all been top-down (with you telling us it was going to happen)... there is no defined process or channel for our comments. What do you suggest?

One thing about the contents I would suggest you modify – the EURALO GA met for the first time in Paris, but the EURALO itself has met several times previously using ICANN travel support. You may wish to modify that line in the statement to make it more accurate.

Clarification: If the GA only met for the first time in Paris, then it was only a subset of EURALO -- its exec -- that has met before. And the MOU was formalized in Paris. So in reality, the entire EURALO did indeed meet only for the first time this year; everything before that was prep and informal. Still, your point is taken, and I would be happy to make an appropriate clarification to the submission. Unfortunately, Kieren told me that the deadline for the ICC process was eight hours before your comment was sent -- believe me, there would have been many more changes to the doc had we been given a few more days. If you could put in a good word with Kieren to allow this minor change it would be appreciated. - Evan

Dharma and all, Seems that many still don't "Get it" when it comes to ICANN and volunteers. The ICANN leadership, such as it is, not only wants any At-Large to volunteer their time but also as much money as each volunteer may have or can beg, barrow or otherwise acquire. In other words, pay your own way, and the ICANN's Bod and Staff to boot, or bugger off. This would of course include Travel expenses. You will receive no benefit FROM ICANN, as the Bod and staff feel as if just being able to associate with them however far removed is a huge benefit in and of it self, and in fact saripticiously expects YOU to pay them for that privilege, however dubious. Any benefit you by accident do recieve, will be directly dependant on how well you can brown nose... Dharma Dailey wrote:

Dear Nick and All,

This issue of travel funding heralds the confusion that I have with trying to be an active participant in NARALO. I suppose since ICANN solicited membership in this body, it was seen as serving a function within ICANN for At-Large to exist. But there seems to be inconsistency and lack of clarity about what is required to make At- Large a fully featured contributing member of the ICANN community. My understanding is as follows: At-Large in its present iteration is one in a series of attempts by ICANN to solicit participation of individuals and entities who "represent internet users." At-Large is intended to bring in people who are outside of the loop of the vested interests that perpetually and justifiably make up the majority of people participating in ICANN- those whose livelihoods are based around registries and domains. All parties will concede, I think, that recruitment, retention, and integration into ICANN processes of folks without a vested financial or career interest in ICANN outcomes turns out to be no small task.

I have limited experience working within international governance bodies, so I can't speak to best practices regarding travel allowances. But I do have tons of experience working on all-volunteer and mostly volunteer community technology projects. My experience as an organizer on such projects is that, without fail, integrating people who represent aspects of a community that reaches beyond the usual suspects always requires more time, more money, more initiative, and more emotional fortitude than one ever anticipates. There are a series of cultural learning curves that need to take place from all parties before At-Large can work together more functionally and within ICANN more functionally.

On the flip side, speaking as volunteer who has in turn been "organized" by ICANN, I am still waiting to see what value, if any, there is to being a participant in the ICANN community. Is there any benefit I can bring back to Community Networks in North America based on involvement in NARALO? So far, I feel that the only outcome of my participation to date, the signing of the NARALO agreement, benefited ICANN in a one-sided way. Our signatures can be used by ICANN as proof positive that an American based corporation has the right to take on a piece of development that is sensitive for the entire world. However, if participation by Community Networks is nulled by vagaries of funding, by vagaries of priorities, by lack of clarity of what value we *could* bring to ICANN- I would have to say that my participation is actually causing harm to the groups I work with and work for.

Integrating such an all volunteer group of unusual suspects into an entity as large and tentacled as ICANN compounds the challenge by a few orders of magnitude. Volunteer based work has its own pace -- much slower - than when a paycheck is involved. ICANN has done a good job of getting talented and varied volunteer groups from across the globe, but the body as a whole still needs development. Development still equals some combination of time, talent and money. Time and talent need to come both from ICANN and from the RALOs. Money needs to come from ICANN. I believe that a timeline of less than 5 years for development of At-Large is unrealistic. (From my reckoning NARALO is just beginning year two.) It is very very difficult, some argue impossible, to hash out a working plan, do strategic work, or figure out how to get along with colleagues when one is not actually sitting across from them. Current thinking on project management- at least among those I've talked to such as Dr. Pepper at Cisco who is promoting some very fancy high end teleconferencing technology -- is that at the inception of a project people need to meet face to face, in person, early, and often. Once good working relationships are established, strategy and mission are well defined, and a working plan is in hand, technology can take over. ICANN can certainly choose who gets to meet, who doesn't, and how often, but "progress"- however defined- will likely happen one meeting at a time. If all stakeholders are not present, progress stalls or even dies.

If money is saved on travel but yet another iteration of At-large tanks ICANN is penny wise and pound foolish. The first order question is not how much should we spend on travel this year, but how do we develop and maintain, over a realistic period of time, a dedicated, talented, and diverse At-Large community which rounds out what's missing in the rest of ICANN.

-Dharma Dailey Emerging Futures Network

On Aug 2, 2008, at 11:25 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

...

Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:

...

I thought you would wish to know that the travel policy referred to inferentially in the Board resolution in Paris has not yet been finalised, and therefore there has been no decision (one way or the other) to change the travel for At-Large as defined immediately below, so you may wish to keep the draft, when completed, ‘in your pocket’ as it were until the decision is announced. Or, of course, you could phrase it in such a way as to take account of the non- finalised-state of the policy.

So noted.

...

I would remind you all that I have on many occasions stated that the situation pre-FY2009, in which:

At-Large received travel funding for 35 people to each meeting; Nominating Committee appointees received travel support All other communities received no funding

Was going to change when a policy for volunteers was adopted, and that the result of that policy would almost certainly result in some level of travel support for those heretofore receiving none, and less support for those heretofore receiving the most.

Reminding everyone multiple times of imminent bad policy does not somehow render the policy less bad when it eventually happens.

Also, telling this to us on multiple occasions does not -- at least to me -- indicate any level of consultation; rather, it indicates the change asserted as a done deal, made by bureaucrats, with no solicitation of impact from those it is effecting. This is a most un-transparent process.

That ICANN believes that its "underfunded constituencies" -- the IP lawyers, government bureaucrats and contracted parties -- require its subsidy, is a matter of pure amazement. That such funding should come as a result of reducing support to At-Large and the NomComm -- two bodies of ICANN's own creation designed to represent the "greater good" amongst all the self-interests -- goes beyond amazement into disbelief.

...

I also said pretty clearly on multiple occasions that if the Summit proposal was approved, there would certainly be a reduction in the travel support for the community to the other two meetings during the financial year (no ‘doubling up’ of support).

That was understood by everyone and you knew this. There was a target for which we were aiming that every ALS member would have one opportunity per year for F2F, whether at a nearby ICANN meeting or a smaller regional event. A Summit to which all ALSs were invited would satisfy the target for that year. (For instance, as a Summit is happening in 2009 there is NO expectation that any other regional F2F take place that year.) However, everyone has also made it clear that the Summit is a one-time event, but that the funding cutoff of ALSs to attend regional meetings would be an ongoing policy that would long outlast the Summit year. Uncertainty about the Summit time and place means, for instance that there will be no ALS FSF meeting in the Americas this year.

And again, stating something repeatedly does not make it right, and it certainly does not constitute any form of consultation.

...

This is not by way of trying to suggest that you should not make any points on the subject you feel should be made – on the contrary, you should say what you think should be said.

And that has indeed been done. We have submitted a position (attached) to the President's Committee on Increasing Institutional Confidence. (http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#iic-consultation), as was discussed at the last NARALO conference call.

In terms of direct comment on the travel policy, to whom should we address any formal comments? So far the conversation has all been top-down (with you telling us it was going to happen)... there is no defined process or channel for our comments. What do you suggest?

...

One thing about the contents I would suggest you modify – the EURALO GA met for the first time in Paris, but the EURALO itself has met several times previously using ICANN travel support. You may wish to modify that line in the statement to make it more accurate.

Clarification: If the GA only met for the first time in Paris, then it was only a subset of EURALO -- its exec -- that has met before. And the MOU was formalized in Paris. So in reality, the entire EURALO did indeed meet only for the first time this year; everything before that was prep and informal.

Still, your point is taken, and I would be happy to make an appropriate clarification to the submission. Unfortunately, Kieren told me that the deadline for the ICC process was eight hours before your comment was sent -- believe me, there would have been many more changes to the doc had we been given a few more days. If you could put in a good word with Kieren to allow this minor change it would be appreciated.

- Evan

<NARALO submission to PSC.doc>------ 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 ------

------ 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

Nick and all, Than when will the ALAC practice what it seems to be willing to preach? Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:

Dear Dharma:

Many thanks for your thoughtful and detailed response.

I think we can all agree that the ambition of the ICANN model - that every stakeholder should have a 'way in' to make their views heard - is a worthy ambition. Of course, it is as you say very hard to actually make this a reality on a routine basis for all stakeholders and ambitious goals like this are in some sense like life - the journey's the point; the end is never really reached.

I believe that we are trying to 'level the playing field' for participation by the individual Internet user interest in ICANN. For many years now, this community has received a concentration of resources of all kinds which in many respects is much greater than that provided to any other stakeholder group, precisely because there's an awareness that for broad civil society representation to exist, different kinds of support systems and structures are necessary than are required for participation by (for example) interests who have a core commercial interest in participating.

The financial resources dedicated to At-Large over the years are in the millions, as you know. There is a continuing commitment - At-Large currently has more dedicated staff exclusively serving the community than the GNSO, for example - and the recent decision to fund a Summit of all ALSes is another example.

The informational resources being made available are increasingly, I think, useful - our website is continually being improved (and it is the most modern site in the ICANN.org system); introductions to issues are now available in short documents that are easy-to-read (something that this community (among others) asked for; meetings and teleconferences have interpretation provided (I know it isn't always technically wonderful, but we are doing all we can), and increasingly documents are provided in multiple languages.

The At-Large staff is also taking the lead in organising briefings on the issues so that in an hour, a layperson can learn what is actually meant by 'fast flux' and why and how it is being debated, for example.

I am not saying all this as an attempt to persuade you that you should not hold to the views you have on travel, or that the issues you raise about travel aren't significant, or that ICANN is doing all it can do. I am saying that I believe ICANN is trying to increase its support for At-Large overall. We're also trying to support other communities in their efforts at participation, and of course the relative levels of support offered will never make everyone happy. There are only so many dollars to go around.

I would note that the fellowship programme is designed (and has been expanded this year) to help ensure that more participants from various communities who are from developing countries are able to attend ICANN meetings.

At Cheryl's request, I am working out a time when Doug and Denise are available to discuss the travel policy with any members of the community who wish to attend - we're aiming for next week.

I hope that you will make the time to join and make your points about community development directly.

On 14/08/2008 06:18, "Dharma Dailey" <dharma@ethoswireless.com> wrote:

Dear Nick and All,

This issue of travel funding heralds the confusion that I have with trying to be an active participant in NARALO. I suppose since ICANN solicited membership in this body, it was seen as serving a function within ICANN for At-Large to exist. But there seems to be inconsistency and lack of clarity about what is required to make At- Large a fully featured contributing member of the ICANN community. My understanding is as follows: At-Large in its present iteration is one in a series of attempts by ICANN to solicit participation of individuals and entities who "represent internet users." At-Large is intended to bring in people who are outside of the loop of the vested interests that perpetually and justifiably make up the majority of people participating in ICANN- those whose livelihoods are based around registries and domains. All parties will concede, I think, that recruitment, retention, and integration into ICANN processes of folks without a vested financial or career interest in ICANN outcomes turns out to be no small task.

I have limited experience working within international governance bodies, so I can't speak to best practices regarding travel allowances. But I do have tons of experience working on all-volunteer and mostly volunteer community technology projects. My experience as an organizer on such projects is that, without fail, integrating people who represent aspects of a community that reaches beyond the usual suspects always requires more time, more money, more initiative, and more emotional fortitude than one ever anticipates. There are a series of cultural learning curves that need to take place from all parties before At-Large can work together more functionally and within ICANN more functionally.

On the flip side, speaking as volunteer who has in turn been "organized" by ICANN, I am still waiting to see what value, if any, there is to being a participant in the ICANN community. Is there any benefit I can bring back to Community Networks in North America based on involvement in NARALO? So far, I feel that the only outcome of my participation to date, the signing of the NARALO agreement, benefited ICANN in a one-sided way. Our signatures can be used by ICANN as proof positive that an American based corporation has the right to take on a piece of development that is sensitive for the entire world. However, if participation by Community Networks is nulled by vagaries of funding, by vagaries of priorities, by lack of clarity of what value we *could* bring to ICANN- I would have to say that my participation is actually causing harm to the groups I work with and work for.

Integrating such an all volunteer group of unusual suspects into an entity as large and tentacled as ICANN compounds the challenge by a few orders of magnitude. Volunteer based work has its own pace -- much slower - than when a paycheck is involved. ICANN has done a good job of getting talented and varied volunteer groups from across the globe, but the body as a whole still needs development. Development still equals some combination of time, talent and money. Time and talent need to come both from ICANN and from the RALOs. Money needs to come from ICANN. I believe that a timeline of less than 5 years for development of At-Large is unrealistic. (From my reckoning NARALO is just beginning year two.) It is very very difficult, some argue impossible, to hash out a working plan, do strategic work, or figure out how to get along with colleagues when one is not actually sitting across from them. Current thinking on project management- at least among those I've talked to such as Dr. Pepper at Cisco who is promoting some very fancy high end teleconferencing technology -- is that at the inception of a project people need to meet face to face, in person, early, and often. Once good working relationships are established, strategy and mission are well defined, and a working plan is in hand, technology can take over. ICANN can certainly choose who gets to meet, who doesn't, and how often, but "progress"- however defined- will likely happen one meeting at a time. If all stakeholders are not present, progress stalls or even dies.

If money is saved on travel but yet another iteration of At-large tanks ICANN is penny wise and pound foolish. The first order question is not how much should we spend on travel this year, but how do we develop and maintain, over a realistic period of time, a dedicated, talented, and diverse At-Large community which rounds out what's missing in the rest of ICANN.

-Dharma Dailey Emerging Futures Network

On Aug 2, 2008, at 11:25 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

...

Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:

...

I thought you would wish to know that the travel policy referred to inferentially in the Board resolution in Paris has not yet been finalised, and therefore there has been no decision (one way or the other) to change the travel for At-Large as defined immediately below, so you may wish to keep the draft, when completed, 'in your pocket' as it were until the decision is announced. Or, of course, you could phrase it in such a way as to take account of the non- finalised-state of the policy.

So noted.

...

I would remind you all that I have on many occasions stated that the situation pre-FY2009, in which:

At-Large received travel funding for 35 people to each meeting; Nominating Committee appointees received travel support All other communities received no funding

Was going to change when a policy for volunteers was adopted, and that the result of that policy would almost certainly result in some level of travel support for those heretofore receiving none, and less support for those heretofore receiving the most.

Reminding everyone multiple times of imminent bad policy does not somehow render the policy less bad when it eventually happens.

Also, telling this to us on multiple occasions does not -- at least to me -- indicate any level of consultation; rather, it indicates the change asserted as a done deal, made by bureaucrats, with no solicitation of impact from those it is effecting. This is a most un-transparent process.

That ICANN believes that its "underfunded constituencies" -- the IP lawyers, government bureaucrats and contracted parties -- require its subsidy, is a matter of pure amazement. That such funding should come as a result of reducing support to At-Large and the NomComm -- two bodies of ICANN's own creation designed to represent the "greater good" amongst all the self-interests -- goes beyond amazement into disbelief.

...

I also said pretty clearly on multiple occasions that if the Summit proposal was approved, there would certainly be a reduction in the travel support for the community to the other two meetings during the financial year (no 'doubling up' of support).

That was understood by everyone and you knew this. There was a target for which we were aiming that every ALS member would have one opportunity per year for F2F, whether at a nearby ICANN meeting or a smaller regional event. A Summit to which all ALSs were invited would satisfy the target for that year. (For instance, as a Summit is happening in 2009 there is NO expectation that any other regional F2F take place that year.) However, everyone has also made it clear that the Summit is a one-time event, but that the funding cutoff of ALSs to attend regional meetings would be an ongoing policy that would long outlast the Summit year. Uncertainty about the Summit time and place means, for instance that there will be no ALS FSF meeting in the Americas this year.

And again, stating something repeatedly does not make it right, and it certainly does not constitute any form of consultation.

...

This is not by way of trying to suggest that you should not make any points on the subject you feel should be made - on the contrary, you should say what you think should be said.

And that has indeed been done. We have submitted a position (attached) to the President's Committee on Increasing Institutional Confidence. (http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#iic-consultation), as was discussed at the last NARALO conference call.

In terms of direct comment on the travel policy, to whom should we address any formal comments? So far the conversation has all been top-down (with you telling us it was going to happen)... there is no defined process or channel for our comments. What do you suggest?

...

One thing about the contents I would suggest you modify - the EURALO GA met for the first time in Paris, but the EURALO itself has met several times previously using ICANN travel support. You may wish to modify that line in the statement to make it more accurate.

Clarification: If the GA only met for the first time in Paris, then it was only a subset of EURALO -- its exec -- that has met before. And the MOU was formalized in Paris. So in reality, the entire EURALO did indeed meet only for the first time this year; everything before that was prep and informal.

Still, your point is taken, and I would be happy to make an appropriate clarification to the submission. Unfortunately, Kieren told me that the deadline for the ICC process was eight hours before your comment was sent -- believe me, there would have been many more changes to the doc had we been given a few more days. If you could put in a good word with Kieren to allow this minor change it would be appreciated.

- Evan

<NARALO submission to PSC.doc>------ 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 ------

------ 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,

Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart ------ 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

Evan and all, Same old tried and true game. Devide and conquer. Works nearly every time. What did you expect? Again and for the I don't know how many times now, if the ALAC and each of the NARALO's doesn't secure and provide for it's own funding, it's voice and impact will be so limited within ICANN. Just that simple! Evan Leibovitch wrote:

Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:

...

I believe that we are trying to 'level the playing field' for participation by the individual Internet user interest in ICANN. Such "levelling" is being done in favour of direct business interests (whether contracted bodies or consultants, lawyers and lobbyists who would not be here if not already paid to do so), and at the expense of the only body that ICANN itself created to represent the public interest.

Already, the business and IP communities have split themselves into two different constituencies -- though they share the same interests and motivations -- in order to dilute the representation of the public interest. This did not and could not happen without the consent of ICANN management.

The fact remains that, even without funding, the business and contracted communities manage to show up in force at every ICANN meeting. Perhaps ICANN management might understand that this is because they have financial interest in ICANN direction so it is in their financial interest to sway policy in their favour. The new gTLD policy essentially demonstrates the business interests collectively silencing the non-commercial voice, without any subsidy at all.

And now the intent is to reduce At-Large support.... except for staff.

...

For many years now, this community has received a concentration of resources of all kinds which in many respects is much greater than that provided to any other stakeholder group, precisely because there's an awareness that for broad civil society representation to exist, different kinds of support systems and structures are necessary than are required for participation by (for example) interests who have a core commercial interest in participating.

If that is understood, then so is the need for an "unbalanced playing field". What changed?

...

The financial resources dedicated to At-Large over the years are in the millions, as you know. There is a continuing commitment - At-Large currently has more dedicated staff exclusively serving the community than the GNSO, for example - and the recent decision to fund a Summit of all ALSes is another example.

And yet, the Summit did not come about without many obstacles, and as we speak its own planning resources have been slashed.

...

I am not saying all this as an attempt to persuade you that you should not hold to the views you have on travel, or that the issues you raise about travel aren't significant, or that ICANN is doing all it can do. I am saying that I believe ICANN is trying to increase its support for At-Large overall.

... by boosting the At-large dedicated staff budget (which we're not allowed to see, let alone control) while reducing direct support for the volunteer community by 78%. This is indeed an interesting belief.

...

We're also trying to support other communities in their efforts at participation, Do you believe that the IP, business and contracted communities would not show up at meetings without ICANN subsidy? Doesn't current reality refute that need?

...

and of course the relative levels of support offered will never make everyone happy. There are only so many dollars to go around.

This is ICANN, not Chrysler. The pool grows every year, soon to grow even faster through gTLD auctions.

...

At Cheryl's request, I am working out a time when Doug and Denise are available to discuss the travel policy with any members of the community who wish to attend - we're aiming for next week.

If this call happens, please ensure that staff do not waste our time with speeches about how much has already been spent on At-Large. We get it. You have made sure we get it. Instead, I would like Doug and Denise be prepared to explain the present and future rather than the past:

- how much of the non-staff component of At-Large resources -- that is, money spent directly on the volunteers -- will change over the coming years

- how the staff expects a Summit to be planned smoothly without any Summit organizers in Cairo

- how much the At-Large community is being engaged to provide translation and documentation resources in order to reduce cost and increase efficiency

- what input At-Large has into the allocation of its own budget

- how the staff expects ALAC to increase (let alone maintain) its level of co-ordination and effectiveness when only half of its elected members will be able to attend meetings

- why the business, IP and contracted constituencies need and deserve ICANN support for their lobbyists

- how outreach will be done since At-Large proposals and regional meetings have been eliminated without consultation

- why At-Large cannot be charged with determining how much staff support it needs -- perhaps some money spent on staff can be better spent directly in the community

- 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

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

Dear Nick, I acknowledge that ICANN has made a substantial long-term organizational and financial commitment to developing the At-Large community. I appreciate the dedication of the At-Large staff to improving and innovating on many areas that support the work of the At- Large community and indeed we can hope some of these efforts reach beyond the At-Large community to educate the public more directly about ICANN. While for you, ICANN work is a long ongoing saga, for the new RALOs, we see our work as only just beginning. One year ago, I signed an agreement with ICANN which indicated, as I understand it, that I would take on a three fold mission in partnership with ICANN to 1) educate internet users about ICANN policy 2) bring the a perspective of internet users to ICANN policy and 3) recruit other groups representing internet users to become participants in At-Large. I am speaking strictly from my perspective as a relatively green-eared recruit. I feel that there is still much foundational work to be done to make At-Large what we all hope it could be. From my perspective, the work for my ALS is still at square 0. The foundational work to execute the At-Large mission in a way that is appropriate for the internet users with whom I work has not been done. For me, it seems to be a simple question of logistics. Foundational work, such as setting priorities and developing a work plan, inlcuding budgeting- is best done face to face. This is why the very first thing that NARALO wanted to initiate was a Summit: We need an extended in person conversation of what objectives flow out of our mission, what are the preconditions and resources to achieve those objectives, and what are reasonable milestones and metrics for achievement. *Then* we will have something substantive and meaningful to say about travel funding. Particularly in the context of volunteer driven work, where there are only carrots and no sticks, it is important that mission is widely and well understood and work plans (including budget) are widely accepted as logically flowing out of the mission. I believe that the best way to accomplish this is by community wide meetings with all stakeholders present. In this instance, stakeholders are ICANN decision-makers and At-Large reps. And the meetings would be the Summit and, if needed, meetings which lay the ground work for it. While it’s unrealistic to think that ICANN will dump infinite resources into At-Large, it’s equally unrealistic to think that volunteers will take substantial resources away from our work building networks in marginalized and remote communities, consumer protection work, communication and human rights work, when 98% of what ICANN does is, at best, tangentially related to such efforts. That critical, vital, important 2% that is related to our “real” work is difficult to uncover, impossible for us to explain to our colleagues, and our ability to influence it is an unknown. While that may sound like harsh criticism, I level it against no one in particular. We are trying to do something that is difficult. The growing pains are spread around in equal measure. As you eloquently said, Nick, we’re on a journey, much of this work is not “set it and forget it” in nature. However, if we agree that At- Large is nascent (and maybe we don’t agree!) than we should insist that it gets the resources that any project which is in formative stages requires to get it up and running: more face to face meetings. As we organizationally mature, face to face meetings may become less needed. This often happens as projects develop. As we dialogue about this it occurs to me that the Summit should have all parties within ICANN who have decision making power regarding At- Large present, including finance, budget, et al. And that the Summit should take place when people’s attention’s are not divided by 67 other things -- that is -- not during another meeting. Otherwise, good money will be thrown after bad. We shouldn’t spend a penny that we don’t think helps fulfill our mission-- and building wide consensus on how that’s best accomplished should be a goal we all work towards. The good news is that there *are* resources to work with, we just need to get on the same page about how to work with them. Dharma Dailey Emerging Futures Network The Ethos Group On Aug 14, 2008, at 1:06 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:

Dear Dharma:

Many thanks for your thoughtful and detailed response.

I think we can all agree that the ambition of the ICANN model – that every stakeholder should have a ‘way in’ to make their views heard – is a worthy ambition. Of course, it is as you say very hard to actually make this a reality on a routine basis for all stakeholders and ambitious goals like this are in some sense like life – the journey’s the point; the end is never really reached.

I believe that we are trying to ‘level the playing field’ for participation by the individual Internet user interest in ICANN. For many years now, this community has received a concentration of resources of all kinds which in many respects is much greater than that provided to any other stakeholder group, precisely because there’s an awareness that for broad civil society representation to exist, different kinds of support systems and structures are necessary than are required for participation by (for example) interests who have a core commercial interest in participating.

The financial resources dedicated to At-Large over the years are in the millions, as you know. There is a continuing commitment – At- Large currently has more dedicated staff exclusively serving the community than the GNSO, for example – and the recent decision to fund a Summit of all ALSes is another example.

The informational resources being made available are increasingly, I think, useful – our website is continually being improved (and it is the most modern site in the ICANN.org system); introductions to issues are now available in short documents that are easy-to-read (something that this community (among others) asked for; meetings and teleconferences have interpretation provided (I know it isn’t always technically wonderful, but we are doing all we can), and increasingly documents are provided in multiple languages.

The At-Large staff is also taking the lead in organising briefings on the issues so that in an hour, a layperson can learn what is actually meant by ‘fast flux’ and why and how it is being debated, for example.

I am not saying all this as an attempt to persuade you that you should not hold to the views you have on travel, or that the issues you raise about travel aren’t significant, or that ICANN is doing all it can do. I am saying that I believe ICANN is trying to increase its support for At-Large overall. We’re also trying to support other communities in their efforts at participation, and of course the relative levels of support offered will never make everyone happy. There are only so many dollars to go around.

I would note that the fellowship programme is designed (and has been expanded this year) to help ensure that more participants from various communities who are from developing countries are able to attend ICANN meetings.

At Cheryl’s request, I am working out a time when Doug and Denise are available to discuss the travel policy with any members of the community who wish to attend – we’re aiming for next week.

I hope that you will make the time to join and make your points about community development directly.

On 14/08/2008 06:18, "Dharma Dailey" <dharma@ethoswireless.com> wrote:

Dear Nick and All,

This issue of travel funding heralds the confusion that I have with trying to be an active participant in NARALO. I suppose since ICANN solicited membership in this body, it was seen as serving a function within ICANN for At-Large to exist. But there seems to be inconsistency and lack of clarity about what is required to make At- Large a fully featured contributing member of the ICANN community. My understanding is as follows: At-Large in its present iteration is one in a series of attempts by ICANN to solicit participation of individuals and entities who "represent internet users." At-Large is intended to bring in people who are outside of the loop of the vested interests that perpetually and justifiably make up the majority of people participating in ICANN- those whose livelihoods are based around registries and domains. All parties will concede, I think, that recruitment, retention, and integration into ICANN processes of folks without a vested financial or career interest in ICANN outcomes turns out to be no small task.

I have limited experience working within international governance bodies, so I can't speak to best practices regarding travel allowances. But I do have tons of experience working on all-volunteer and mostly volunteer community technology projects. My experience as an organizer on such projects is that, without fail, integrating people who represent aspects of a community that reaches beyond the usual suspects always requires more time, more money, more initiative, and more emotional fortitude than one ever anticipates. There are a series of cultural learning curves that need to take place from all parties before At-Large can work together more functionally and within ICANN more functionally.

On the flip side, speaking as volunteer who has in turn been "organized" by ICANN, I am still waiting to see what value, if any, there is to being a participant in the ICANN community. Is there any benefit I can bring back to Community Networks in North America based on involvement in NARALO? So far, I feel that the only outcome of my participation to date, the signing of the NARALO agreement, benefited ICANN in a one-sided way. Our signatures can be used by ICANN as proof positive that an American based corporation has the right to take on a piece of development that is sensitive for the entire world. However, if participation by Community Networks is nulled by vagaries of funding, by vagaries of priorities, by lack of clarity of what value we *could* bring to ICANN- I would have to say that my participation is actually causing harm to the groups I work with and work for.

Integrating such an all volunteer group of unusual suspects into an entity as large and tentacled as ICANN compounds the challenge by a few orders of magnitude. Volunteer based work has its own pace -- much slower - than when a paycheck is involved. ICANN has done a good job of getting talented and varied volunteer groups from across the globe, but the body as a whole still needs development. Development still equals some combination of time, talent and money. Time and talent need to come both from ICANN and from the RALOs. Money needs to come from ICANN. I believe that a timeline of less than 5 years for development of At-Large is unrealistic. (From my reckoning NARALO is just beginning year two.) It is very very difficult, some argue impossible, to hash out a working plan, do strategic work, or figure out how to get along with colleagues when one is not actually sitting across from them. Current thinking on project management- at least among those I've talked to such as Dr. Pepper at Cisco who is promoting some very fancy high end teleconferencing technology -- is that at the inception of a project people need to meet face to face, in person, early, and often. Once good working relationships are established, strategy and mission are well defined, and a working plan is in hand, technology can take over. ICANN can certainly choose who gets to meet, who doesn't, and how often, but "progress"- however defined- will likely happen one meeting at a time. If all stakeholders are not present, progress stalls or even dies.

If money is saved on travel but yet another iteration of At-large tanks ICANN is penny wise and pound foolish. The first order question is not how much should we spend on travel this year, but how do we develop and maintain, over a realistic period of time, a dedicated, talented, and diverse At-Large community which rounds out what's missing in the rest of ICANN.

-Dharma Dailey Emerging Futures Network

On Aug 2, 2008, at 11:25 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

...

Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:

...

I thought you would wish to know that the travel policy referred to inferentially in the Board resolution in Paris has not yet been finalised, and therefore there has been no decision (one way or the other) to change the travel for At-Large as defined immediately below, so you may wish to keep the draft, when completed, ‘in your pocket’ as it were until the decision is announced. Or, of course, you could phrase it in such a way as to take account of the non- finalised-state of the policy.

So noted.

...

I would remind you all that I have on many occasions stated that the situation pre-FY2009, in which:

At-Large received travel funding for 35 people to each meeting; Nominating Committee appointees received travel support All other communities received no funding

Was going to change when a policy for volunteers was adopted, and that the result of that policy would almost certainly result in some level of travel support for those heretofore receiving none, and less support for those heretofore receiving the most.

Reminding everyone multiple times of imminent bad policy does not somehow render the policy less bad when it eventually happens.

Also, telling this to us on multiple occasions does not -- at least to me -- indicate any level of consultation; rather, it indicates the change asserted as a done deal, made by bureaucrats, with no solicitation of impact from those it is effecting. This is a most un-transparent process.

That ICANN believes that its "underfunded constituencies" -- the IP lawyers, government bureaucrats and contracted parties -- require its subsidy, is a matter of pure amazement. That such funding should come as a result of reducing support to At-Large and the NomComm -- two bodies of ICANN's own creation designed to represent the "greater good" amongst all the self-interests -- goes beyond amazement into disbelief.

...

I also said pretty clearly on multiple occasions that if the Summit proposal was approved, there would certainly be a reduction in the travel support for the community to the other two meetings during the financial year (no ‘doubling up’ of support).

That was understood by everyone and you knew this. There was a target for which we were aiming that every ALS member would have one opportunity per year for F2F, whether at a nearby ICANN meeting or a smaller regional event. A Summit to which all ALSs were invited would satisfy the target for that year. (For instance, as a Summit is happening in 2009 there is NO expectation that any other regional F2F take place that year.) However, everyone has also made it clear that the Summit is a one-time event, but that the funding cutoff of ALSs to attend regional meetings would be an ongoing policy that would long outlast the Summit year. Uncertainty about the Summit time and place means, for instance that there will be no ALS FSF meeting in the Americas this year.

And again, stating something repeatedly does not make it right, and it certainly does not constitute any form of consultation.

...

This is not by way of trying to suggest that you should not make any points on the subject you feel should be made – on the contrary, you should say what you think should be said.

And that has indeed been done. We have submitted a position (attached) to the President's Committee on Increasing Institutional Confidence. (http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#iic-consultation), as was discussed at the last NARALO conference call.

In terms of direct comment on the travel policy, to whom should we address any formal comments? So far the conversation has all been top-down (with you telling us it was going to happen)... there is no defined process or channel for our comments. What do you suggest?

...

One thing about the contents I would suggest you modify – the EURALO GA met for the first time in Paris, but the EURALO itself has met several times previously using ICANN travel support. You may wish to modify that line in the statement to make it more accurate.

Clarification: If the GA only met for the first time in Paris, then it was only a subset of EURALO -- its exec -- that has met before. And the MOU was formalized in Paris. So in reality, the entire EURALO did indeed meet only for the first time this year; everything before that was prep and informal.

Still, your point is taken, and I would be happy to make an appropriate clarification to the submission. Unfortunately, Kieren told me that the deadline for the ICC process was eight hours before your comment was sent -- believe me, there would have been many more changes to the doc had we been given a few more days. If you could put in a good word with Kieren to allow this minor change it would be appreciated.

- Evan

<NARALO submission to PSC.doc>------ 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 ------

------ 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,

Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart