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 > > >