Robin and Mawaki:
I don't agree that it is such a great thing to be funded by ICANN, especially at ALAC levels. ALAC has a real problem with co-optation and the creation of a self-perpetuating clique of insiders who compete for these subsidies. For all our difficulties, at least we know, under the current system, that people who run for NCUC offices are dedicated to our interests and causes. Starting throwing 6-figure sums at it and that can change really fast. On the whole it is better to rely on external forms of support, such as the PIR grant and the Brazilian foundation etc. You should all be politically astute enough to know that who pays the piper calls the tune.

>>> Mawaki Chango <[log in to unmask]> 3/28/2006 7:15 PM >>>
I raised a similar question early this month with Bruce who said that
he intends to discuss this issue with the Board in Wellington in
regard to supporting all GNSO Councillors participation in ICANN
meetings. But of course, that would be even better if NCUC could
directly get enough support from ICANN just as ALAC now...

Mawaki

--- Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> One thing we can all say to ask that NCUC needs funding from ICANN
> to have an equal playing field on issues.  I think this might be a 
> possibility these days - if we all push for it and soon.   In the
> draft operational plan, ALAC would get $330,000 in funding from ICANN for
> travel support alone.  That's terrific!   NCUC should be able to