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,
-------- 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
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