ISPCP Position on Travel Support

[Kieren McCarthy <kieren.mccarthy@xxxxxxxxx>]

[Note from ICANN's general manager of public participation.

This response from the ISPCP was received on 4 May, a significant period of 
time after this public comment period closed. Typically, ICANN will not 
consider submissions made to comment periods past the deadline but in the wider 
interests of the community, an exception has been made in this case.]



ISPCP Position on ICANN Travel Support for Volunteers

 

The ISPCP constituency agrees with the basic principles discussed in the GNSO 
Council’s drafting team on ICANN support for members of GNSO traveling to ICANN 
meetings, namely:

The constituencies of the GNSO should receive ICANN travel support (airfare, 
hotel accommodations and per diem) sufficient for adequate representation at 
each of the three ICANN international meetings in the yearly calendar.

The use of travel support funds is to be solely determined by each constituency 
independently as it sees fit to most effectively progress the work of the GNSO. 
 It is not restricted solely to travel for Council members.

The GNSO Council has no role in deciding how these funds are allocated
to individuals.

The total GNSO Travel support budget (less the amount allotted to the NCAs and 
GNSO Council chair) should be divided to the extent possible on an equal basis 
among the GNSO constituencies. 

Transparency is essential.  The names of all who receive travel support must be 
made known publicly. What is covered for each (i.e. the type of support - air 
fare, accommodations, per diem – not the dollar amounts) must also be made 
public.

Everyone who is supported must make known (e.g. in a report) publicly the dates 
of travel, accommodations (which hotel) and meetings attended and/or work 
accomplished. Note: This should take less than a page to describe.

“Adequate representation” is considered to mean enough funds to send three 
constituency members to each meeting.

The rationale for the ISPCP position is the following.  Volunteers, especially 
constituency officers and councilors – whether in GAC, ALAC, etc. – bear a 
serious responsibility for policy making.  Their workloads are heavy and for 
many (outside of the registries and registrars) their ICANN activities are not 
in the mainstream of their “day jobs” and the organizations for which they 
work. Structural changes within the GNSO necessitate even more work and more 
volunteers for the GNSO.

The cost of travel funding to ICANN is minimal compared with its annual 
operating budget.  Money is not the issue, nor would travel funding require 
increases fees placed on any party

It’s hard for GNSO to allocate partial funding (as in the case of the 2008 
policy).  The ensuing negotiations and discussion wasted much time, lead to 
pointless extra work, controversy, etc.  Administration of the funds is 
considerably easier for all if it is equitable and straight forward

Just as ICANN fully supports ALAC and NomCom appointee travel, it should fully 
fund travel for the GNSO’s active participants in ICANN’s meetings.  These are 
the people who are doing the essential policy work.

We propose that each constituency have a budget from which it can decide 
(subject to ICANN travel policy guidelines) how to best allocate funds to most 
effectively get its work done.

Further, we propose that unspent funds be carried over to the next year.  This 
will give constituencies more flexibility in managing their support.