Robin:
Great work, a few proposed edits below
Statement of the NCUC on ICANN's Travel Funding
Proposal
ICANN is currently revisiting its policy on providing support
for travel expenses. Currently, ICANN supports the travel of the ICANN
Board, ALAC officers, NomCom, and NomCom appointees to supporting
organizations, including the GNSO. GNSO
Council members appointed by the constituencies have not been supported. The
travel expenses of the councilors of these organizations are inherent costs of
ICANN's work, and paying these expenses should be a priority use of ICANN's
resources. Currently ICANN is subsidized by volunteer councilors who provide
not only their personal time and effort, but also the funds to travel to
meetings on the other side of the world.
This change is especially important as the GNSO moves to
restructure its constituencies and strives to increase participation by
individuals. High costs present a bar to participation. Those costs may well
seem reasonable or incidental to those parties who have a large direct
financial interest in ICANN policy, but they are disproportionately burdensome
to individuals and non-commercial parties
who seek the promote the public interest within ICANN. Since NCUC
is the only constituency not supported by commercial interests and large
industries, the under-funding of the GNSO has been the single most significant
barrier to NCUC participation in ICANN policy making. ICANN is financially
self-sufficient and should bear the costs of its own operation. Otherwise,
only those who can routinely pay thousands of dollars to participate in policy
discussions will be able to influence ICANN policy-making.
ICANN should fund the reasonable travel expenses of all GNSO
councilors, who are all needed to carry out ICANN’s policy work. The current
proposal to pay the travel expenses of half of the councilors is both insufficient and potentially divisive and discriminatory.
Funding some of the
councilors leaves the process open to gamesmanship and favoritism; it also waste’s the Council’s time by
giving it another contentious decision to make. Face-to-face
council meetings are essential to the work of the GNSO, and the expense of
keeping the GNSO running is as much a cost of ICANN's operation as the travel
expenses of the Board or SO chairs.
The Internet community would not accept a policy in which
only half of the board members were funded to participate in board meetings,
but ICANN proposes providing support for only half of the GNSO Council to
participate in policy meetings. The GNSO is supposed to represent all of the
various stake-holders or interest groups who belong at the table in Internet
policy negotiations. As the supposedly “bottom-up” part of ICANN, the GNSO
should be a fully-funded and fully-supported organization within ICANN.
Otherwise, all the talk about “bottom up” policymaking at ICANN is empty
rhetoric meant only for press releases, while the same commercial and
governmental interests continue to dominate actual policy decisions.
IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross,
Executive Director
p: +1-415-553-6261
f: +1-415-462-6451