Mailing Lists
[ALAC] [Fwd: Travel Support for At-Large FY 2010]
Posted July 30th, 2009 by Mailing list user
Dear ALAC Members:
Below please find a note prepared by the staff in order to help inform
discussion in At-Large on how to allocate the travel funds available in
this fiscal year.
When the ALAC Executive Committee met at the end of the Sydney meeting,
Steve and Kevin joined them and a discussion about travel was held; one
of the take-aways was that the staff would look at the available pool of
funds and see what options could be envisaged that stretched those funds
as far as possible to (in particular) ensure that each RALO could hold a
General Assembly each year.
There will be a pair of teleconferences shortly with Kevin, Steve, the
At-Large staff, and any of you and the wider At-Large community who wish
to attend in order to discuss travel support for this coming fiscal
year; as you will see in the below time is of the essence to come to a
decision on who to fund, what for, and how.
[ALAC] [Fwd: Travel Support for At-Large FY 2010]
At-Large Staff wrote:
> Below please find a note prepared by the staff in order to help inform
> discussion in At-Large on how to allocate the travel funds available
> in this fiscal year.
I have a few comments.
First, I am somewhat distressed by the two options presented, because
both come at the expense of some or all RALO participation at ICANN
meetings. This puts me, as a RALO chair, in the position of trading off
my own participation for those of the ALSs and that is not a very fair
choice for me to make.
> When the ALAC Executive Committee met at the end of the Sydney
> meeting, Steve and Kevin joined them and a discussion about travel was
> held; one of the take-aways was that the staff would look at the
> available pool of funds and see what options could be envisaged that
> stretched those funds as far as possible to (in particular) ensure
> that each RALO could hold a General Assembly each year.
Again, we have the executive committee participating in activities for
which it was never intended -- doubly so in this instance because the
discussions were MAINLY concerned with internal RALO allocations that
indeed did not affect ALAC travel subsidy at all. Has RALO leadership
known about such a meeting with those consequences, maybe we would have
been asked to attend -- especially since it is within the RALOs
themselves that all the tradeoffs are being asked to take place.
One more reason to disband the executive committee -- it continues to be
oblivious regarding the bounds of its mandate, in this case even more
outrageously so than usual. I'm eqully annoyed that staff allowed and
encouraged this to happen without the ability of RALO leadership to be
involved in tradeoffs that pit them against their own ALSs.
In any event, I would like to suggest a third-category option -- one in
which GAs are held every two years, staggered so that half the At-Large
GA expense occurs each year. Since there are five RALOs, stagger them
(for instance) so that the two most-expensive regions have GAs on
odd-numbered years and the other three take place in even numbered
years. Or use some other formula that tries to balance the expense -- I
hope you get the idea.
Perhaps this can still allow RALO leaders to fully participate in ICANN
meetings while still allowing GAs to happen.
- Evan
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
[ALAC] [Fwd: Travel Support for At-Large FY 2010]
Evan, you seem to have a rather large misunderstanding about what
transpired at this meeting. What was presented in the note from staff
was not the result of some clandestine negotiations between ICANN
executives and the Executive Committee. What is being presented here
is a fait accomplis. It was stated earlier in the ICANN week by Kevin
Wilson. At our meeting on Friday afternoon, one of my purposes (I
can't speak for Vanda and Cheryl) was to make sure that I had not
mis-understood what they had said in the public meeting, since I was
so incredulous. We (the ALAC) had, I thought, VERY clearly stated
that we wanted and needed RALO leadership at the ICANN meetings *AND*
we felt that for many reasons, we needed regional gatherings as well.
And we reiterated this previously stated position. Period.
The meeting was not held to decide on the fate of RALOs or their
budgets. I was a wrap-up to make sure that the results of the weeks's
meetings were followed up on and that there were no omissions in the
various "to be done" lists. We asked Kevin and Steve to join us to
make sure we understood the current travel situation and tried to
cover things to improve the Seoul meeting.
When it became obvious that I and others had not misunderstood,
Cheryl asked that staff document the options open to us at this time
and the result of that is the document that you are commenting on.
I have said in public (probably to you as well as others) that if
this is indeed the situation for this budget year, perhaps it is too
late to change it, but we still need to try to fix it in future
years. I spend quite a while on Saturday morning talking to Kevin
about the budget analysis I did last fall, to try to make sure that
he understood that this year's At-Large budget is not a continuation
of the status-quo, but a cut. (For the record, I did this as the
person who had spent the most time on travel budget issues over the
last two years, and not as a ExCom member - my discussions predated
my taking on that role.) He said he would go home and root around to
understand what happened. I plan to talk to him this week to find out
if I was successful.
Alan
At 30/07/2009 03:10 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> > When the ALAC Executive Committee met at the end of the Sydney
> > meeting, Steve and Kevin joined them and a discussion about travel was
> > held; one of the take-aways was that the staff would look at the
> > available pool of funds and see what options could be envisaged that
> > stretched those funds as far as possible to (in particular) ensure
> > that each RALO could hold a General Assembly each year.
>
>Again, we have the executive committee participating in activities for
>which it was never intended -- doubly so in this instance because the
>discussions were MAINLY concerned with internal RALO allocations that
>indeed did not affect ALAC travel subsidy at all. Has RALO leadership
>known about such a meeting with those consequences, maybe we would have
>been asked to attend -- especially since it is within the RALOs
>themselves that all the tradeoffs are being asked to take place.
>
>One more reason to disband the executive committee -- it continues to be
>oblivious regarding the bounds of its mandate, in this case even more
>outrageously so than usual. I'm eqully annoyed that staff allowed and
>encouraged this to happen without the ability of RALO leadership to be
>involved in tradeoffs that pit them against their own ALSs.
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
[ALAC] [Fwd: Travel Support for At-Large FY 2010]
Alan Greenberg wrote:
> The meeting was not held to decide on the fate of RALOs or their
> budgets. I was a wrap-up to make sure that the results of the weeks's
> meetings were followed up on and that there were no omissions in the
> various "to be done" lists. We asked Kevin and Steve to join us to
> make sure we understood the current travel situation and tried to
> cover things to improve the Seoul meeting.
>
> I have said in public (probably to you as well as others) that if this
> is indeed the situation for this budget year, perhaps it is too late
> to change it, but we still need to try to fix it in future years. I
> spend quite a while on Saturday morning talking to Kevin about the
> budget analysis I did last fall, to try to make sure that he
> understood that this year's At-Large budget is not a continuation of
> the status-quo, but a cut. (For the record, I did this as the person
> who had spent the most time on travel budget issues over the last two
> years, and not as a ExCom member - my discussions predated my taking
> on that role.) He said he would go home and root around to understand
> what happened. I plan to talk to him this week to find out if I was
> successful.
Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation -- though I still think it would
have helped had there been a wider audience for that session.
What do you think about my idea for biennial general assemblies as a way
to meet the ICANN budget folks half-way?
- Evan
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
[ALAC] [Fwd: Travel Support for At-Large FY 2010]
At 30/07/2009 03:55 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>Alan Greenberg wrote:
> > The meeting was not held to decide on the fate of RALOs or their
> > budgets. I was a wrap-up to make sure that the results of the weeks's
> > meetings were followed up on and that there were no omissions in the
> > various "to be done" lists. We asked Kevin and Steve to join us to
> > make sure we understood the current travel situation and tried to
> > cover things to improve the Seoul meeting.
> >
> > I have said in public (probably to you as well as others) that if this
> > is indeed the situation for this budget year, perhaps it is too late
> > to change it, but we still need to try to fix it in future years. I
> > spend quite a while on Saturday morning talking to Kevin about the
> > budget analysis I did last fall, to try to make sure that he
> > understood that this year's At-Large budget is not a continuation of
> > the status-quo, but a cut. (For the record, I did this as the person
> > who had spent the most time on travel budget issues over the last two
> > years, and not as a ExCom member - my discussions predated my taking
> > on that role.) He said he would go home and root around to understand
> > what happened. I plan to talk to him this week to find out if I was
> > successful.
>
>Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation -- though I still think it would
>have helped had there been a wider audience for that session.
I don't think there was any intention or action to keep the meeting
secret, but do understand that meetings like this have a life of
their own and there was not a scripted agenda other than we needed to
flesh out the carry-forward items and that Kevin/Steve would drop by
sometime. I suspect that if anyone else had shown the slightest
interest in attending a meeting starting at about 3 pm on Friday,
they would not have been kicked out (but that is just my position).
>What do you think about my idea for biennial general assemblies as a way
>to meet the ICANN budget folks half-way?
I need to read your note over carefully, now that I have released my
angst, but it is probably a reasonable position to take IF we can't
get the whole pie (and I have not yet given up).
>- Evan
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
[ALAC] [Fwd: Travel Support for At-Large FY 2010]
Alan is correct - we need to keep trying for the "whole pie"
However, I do support Evan's suggestion of staggered GAs. We
certainly don't want to lose the option of having both the RALO
presidents and secretariats at the ICANN meetings.
Although there are exceptions, In any fiscal year there are usually
two RALOs where there is no ICANN meeting in their geographic region.
Perhaps those regions should be where the GAs are held.
I know you can't reflect this in a budget, but I wonder what the
chances are of an ICANN meeting where everyone who is eligible is able
to attend?
Gareth
On 30-Jul-09, at 1:16 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> At 30/07/2009 03:55 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>> Alan Greenberg wrote:
>> > The meeting was not held to decide on the fate of RALOs or their
>> > budgets. I was a wrap-up to make sure that the results of the
>> weeks's
>> > meetings were followed up on and that there were no omissions in
>> the
>> > various "to be done" lists. We asked Kevin and Steve to join us to
>> > make sure we understood the current travel situation and tried to
>> > cover things to improve the Seoul meeting.
>> >
>> > I have said in public (probably to you as well as others) that if
>> this
>> > is indeed the situation for this budget year, perhaps it is too
>> late
>> > to change it, but we still need to try to fix it in future years. I
>> > spend quite a while on Saturday morning talking to Kevin about the
>> > budget analysis I did last fall, to try to make sure that he
>> > understood that this year's At-Large budget is not a continuation
>> of
>> > the status-quo, but a cut. (For the record, I did this as the
>> person
>> > who had spent the most time on travel budget issues over the last
>> two
>> > years, and not as a ExCom member - my discussions predated my
>> taking
>> > on that role.) He said he would go home and root around to
>> understand
>> > what happened. I plan to talk to him this week to find out if I was
>> > successful.
>>
>> Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation -- though I still think it
>> would
>> have helped had there been a wider audience for that session.
>
> I don't think there was any intention or action to keep the meeting
> secret, but do understand that meetings like this have a life of
> their own and there was not a scripted agenda other than we needed
> to flesh out the carry-forward items and that Kevin/Steve would drop
> by sometime. I suspect that if anyone else had shown the slightest
> interest in attending a meeting starting at about 3 pm on Friday,
> they would not have been kicked out (but that is just my position).
>
>> What do you think about my idea for biennial general assemblies as
>> a way
>> to meet the ICANN budget folks half-way?
>
> I need to read your note over carefully, now that I have released my
> angst, but it is probably a reasonable position to take IF we can't
> get the whole pie (and I have not yet given up).
>
>
>> - Evan
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann...
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
>
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
[ALAC] [Fwd: Travel Support for At-Large FY 2010]
I like the general assemblies idea
The summit was a more effective policymaking activity than ALAC, so a similar function should figure prominently in future ALAC ops