Milton:
I have suspected something along the lines of your concern, and the
last sentence of my previous message was a cautious addition (didn't
want to assume the existence or nonexistence of guideline provisions
robust enough to prevent those problems, but I hear you...). However,
I still think GNSO as a whole should still be able to fund its
members to ICANN's meeting (and probably from ICANN budget
allocation).

Mawaki

--- Milton Mueller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 
> 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
> 
> 
>