Yes. Besides Ayden's points, five questions would be too many, we
won't have enough time even for what we already have, and in any case
it's too late, we don't have time to discuss this even amongst
ourselves.
It would definitely be worth discussing and perhaps other ways of
promoting it even in Hyderabad can be found, but I won't add it to
this list now.
Tapani
On Nov 02 17:43, Ayden Férdeline ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> I would like to suggest that we not ask question five, not at this time at least.
>
> I understand the sentiment and think it is pretty outrageous the imbalances that are created by funding the travel of certain entities, but I'm prepared to tolerate this in the short-term, partially because their participation legitimises the multistakeholder model, partially because these actors are working very hard to develop policy (whether we like the policy they seek to create is a different question), and partially because I think such a question could attract unwanted scrutiny around why non-commercial actors should receive travel support. I wouldn't presume that if there was a crackdown on travel funding that the difference would go to us; rather, we might be another budget line edited out, and then only those who can afford to participate would be participating...
>
> Finally, of all the obstacles and barriers we face, is travel support (or lack thereof) our biggest one? I would humbly submit it may not be. What we lack are a sufficient stream of active volunteers engaged in the different working groups, not the money to fly people to meetings. After all, as recently as a fortnight ago, I believe there were only two applicants for two travel slots which came available at the last minute for ICANN 57 in Hyderabad. I think ICANN needs to radically review its travel support guidelines (and I understand this is happening) so to support our most active members while extending a helping hand to newcomers (of which I stand accused ;-) ), but we should tread very carefully when it comes to calling for the removal of another constituency's resources...
>
> That said, I am, of course, happy to hear other views on this topic. Thanks for raising it, Raoul.
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> Ayden Férdeline
> [linkedin.com/in/ferdeline](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline)
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Topics for meeting with the board in Hyderabad?
> Local Time: 2 November 2016 11:56 PM
> UTC Time: 2 November 2016 18:26
> From: [log in to unmask]
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I think one relevant question to the board could be along the lines:
> 5. Why does ICANN think, that supporting corporations' attendance by funding their travel in equal amounts would be justified, as opposed to funding the travel of non-commercial constituencies?
>
> Some background for the question:
> Non-com groups are defending and even advancing the rights of all users, including individuals under corporate contracts, whereas the corporations are attending only because they want to lobby for more control and profits for themselves. The corporations already have a financial incentive to attend, so do we really need to make it almost free for them as well? Their representatives also get paid to do the work they're doing, whereas us noncoms don't, apart from some exceptions. Therefore, the balance would STILL be rigged for corporations, but not quite as much. I think this would be a minor, nut justified improvement. To make it remarkable, we could use the saved money to fund more noncoms into joining the workload. Workload, that is mostly made by corporations and governments..
>
> -Raoul
>
>
>
> On 2 November 2016 at 19:14, Tapani Tarvainen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Reading through the thread, it looks like we've got at least rough
> consensus on the following. I'm very tired so I may have missed
> something, proofreading welcome, but I'm going to ignore significant
> changes unless argued for by several people (and even then probably
> will simply drop such questions as too difficult for us to agree on).
> Likewise the order, not everybody will be happy with it, but that'd be
> the case with any order.
>
> I'm going to declare this final before noon tomorrow, so comments
> quickly please.
>
>
>
>
> 1. Does the Board continue to agree with Fadi Chehade's position of
> Summer 2015 that ICANN does not police content,
> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-is-not-the-internet-content-police
> (published by Alan Grogan, ICANN's Chief Contract Compliance Officer)?
> Does the Board share our concerns that arrangements like the
> MPAA-Donuts agreement are deeply inappropriate for the Domain Name
> System?
>
> 2. In the Whois Complaint process, anonymous people can make
> complaints that he data is inaccurate and in some cases cause trouble
> for innocent registrants. Why doesn't ICANN ever investigate whether
> these allegations are intended to harass or intimidate registrants or
> are made for anti-competitive reasons?
>
> 3. How does the Board expect the the new complaint system to work when
> it puts ICANN legal, whose job is to protect the corporation from
> complainers whether they are right or wrong, in charge of managing
> complaints? Has the Board considered how it affects the independence
> of the Ombudsman? As an example of our concerns, why there were no
> repercussions for the abuses of TLD evaluation procedures in the Dot
> Registry case?
>
> 4. Following up on the discussion between the NCSG and the Board at
> the Marrakech meeting (ICANN55), we are very interested to hear what
> steps the Board is taking in relation to human rights in addition to
> the ongoing accountability processes. What efforts have been made and
> what activities are planned in relation to human rights and ICANN's
> policy processes as well as ICANN the organization?
>
>
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
|
