Summary and analysis of public comments for Travel Support FY10

[Kevin Wilson <kevin.wilson@xxxxxxxxx>]

Summary and analysis of public comments for:
TRAVEL SUPPORT
Comment period ended: 2 March 2009...kept open for more comments
Summary published:  24 April 2009
Prepared by:  Kevin Wilson, CFO

I.  BACKGROUND

Participation in ICANN's multi-stakeholder model comes at a cost of time, 
energy, effort and often direct expense. It is entirely appropriate for ICANN 
revenue, derived from registrant fees, to offset some of this cost.  For years, 
ICANN has had a practice of offsetting some costs of participation. For 
example, the ICANN Board and liaisons to the Board are reimbursed for ICANN 
travel expenses. Members of the Nominating Committee have also been reimbursed 
for travel expenses to their meetings, and the At-Large Advisory Committee has 
been reimbursed for their travel to ICANN meetings.

For some time, the community has called on ICANN to consider community travel 
support in various forms, and for clarity and transparency on travel support 
procedures. ICANN has more resources than in the past, and it is natural at 
this time to reconsider ICANN's approach to providing constituent travel 
support. As the ICANN institution matures, it is increasingly important that 
the approach to travel support be well considered, documented, and implemented 
in a transparent way.

Last year, ICANN created travel procedures to clarify which members of the 
ICANN community were to receive travel support for that fiscal year (2009). At 
the same time, it was announced that they would be reviewed after the first 
year of use.

This comment period was intended to encourage community members to provide 
feedback before revised procedures are introduced into the FY2010 budget for 
approval at the Sydney meeting in June 2009.

II. GENERAL COMMENTS and CONTRIBUTORS

As of the 7 May 2009 informally extended deadline, a total of 11 community 
submissions have been made by Groups (4) and individuals (7 including one 
advertisement) to this comment forum. The contributors are listed below in 
alphabetical order (with relevant initials noted in parentheses):

APRALO (AP)
At-Large Advisory Committee and the Regional At-Large Organizations (ALAC)
Fahd A. Batayneh (FB)
ICANN Government Advisory Committee (GAC) (submitted by letter to ICANN's CEO 
on 24 APRIL 2009; submitted to website by Kieren McCarthy)
Michael Hu (MH)
ISPCP (ISPCP) (submitted by email on 4 May 2009 after the close date; submitted 
to website by Kieren McCarthy)
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (WK)
SS Kshatriy (SK)
Vika Mpisane (VM) (submitted by email on 7 May 2009 after the close date)
Philip Sheppard (PS)
Ken Stubbs (KS)

III. SUMMARY & ANALYSIS

Comments submitted to this public forum tended to address or be directed toward 
three main thematic areas
(1) those who should receive travel support and at what level;
(2) the consideration of remote participation using digital conferencing 
technologies; and
(3) recommendations related to more timely notification of air travel and 
lodging to facilitate visa process.

Most of the comments were focused on the needs of individual or group writing 
the comment.

The comments made on the first theme indicating those who should receive more 
travel support and at what level included:
*             VM says the ICANN travel support for the Board and Supporting 
Organization Chairs and Councilors is good and the ICANN Fellowship program is 
able to bring more participants to ICANN meetings is also good.
*             PS recommends the full travel funding of the individuals who are 
members of the bodies required for ICANN to fulfill its mission. He also 
suggested this primarily includes the Board, GNSO Council, CC Council and ALAC.
*             AP believes that the Chair and his / her delegates and the 
secretariat should attend the ICANN meetings and also the Annual General 
Meeting of the APRALO. AP also stated that any ALAC liaison who has a major 
function at an ICANN meting should be fully funded for travel.
*             ISPCP stated that the constituencies of the GNSO should receive 
ICANN travel support sufficient for adequate representation at each of the 
three international meetings each year. ISPCP added that the use of travel 
funds should be solely determined by each constituency and the names of all who 
receive travel support must be made public.
*             KS suggested that the $300 provided to Fellows for other expenses 
was not enough and also suggested additional support for those who are 
volunteers working for ICANN.
*             GAC stated that because GAC provides advice to the Board on 
issues of public policy, it is appropriate that some assistance be provided to 
the GAC.
*             WK says that GAC, due to reasons of independence, should be 
excluded from funding.
*             ALAC provided a number of comments related to this travel support 
theme; some of the key points raised by ALAC include:
*             If ICANN should follow-through on not funding travel for some 
ALAC members, it is virtually certain that most or all would not be able to 
attend ICANN meetings. This would significantly threaten the ability of ALAC to 
function, and would likely prompt at least some of the other members (including 
NCAs) to resign due to the lack of a critical mass at meetings.
*             ALAC stated they would like ALAC travel funding to be roughly at 
the same levels it was in FY09
*             Funding of RALO leadership attendance at ICANN meetings is 
critical. These are the key people in the regions who must motivate and act as 
liaisons to their ALSs.
*             One General Assembly per RALO (with an average of 15 ALSs each) 
should be funded on a regular basis.
*             ALAC recommends the consideration of providing opportunities for 
the regional communities to work together on specific issues face-to-face and 
with regional groups on horizontal level, which can then feed back into the 
process on international level.
*             The per diem payment arrangements process needs to take into 
account that in some countries, receiving international wire transfers is 
impractical or impossible.
*             In many cases it is difficult for some participants to cover 
their expenses on their accounts before the per diem or reimbursement is 
received.
*             Since few or no At-Large participants have jobs related to ICANN 
issues, full travel support to ICANN meetings will be required. Due to the all 
volunteer-based structure of the At-Large, travel support is essential to full 
participation and collaborative work.
*             ICANN should continue to fully fund ALAC travel costs as well as 
that of its By-law-mandated liaisons and key RALO leaders.

The comments made on the second theme requesting consideration of remote 
participation included:
*             KS says ICANN should take the lead in utilizing digital 
conferencing technologies to enhance remote participation and reduce the 
overall costs of holding meetings.
*             VM stated that digital and remote conferencing technologies can 
be used to maximize participation and reduce spending in light of the global 
economic recession.
*             GAC believes that further facilitation of remote participation in 
ICANN meetings could increase continued and informed participation of 
government representatives n ICANN's work.
*             ALAC stated that providing reliable working remote participation 
systems is vital. Telephonic participation, chat interface, and video streaming 
should be run to a far more professional standard than they currently are.

The comments made on the third theme related to more timely notifications 
include:
*             FB stated that it would have been better if he had been informed 
of his travel support earlier because he had a tough time obtaining his visa to 
Mexico,
*             AP suggested the ticket and hotel confirmations to be taken care 
of at least 45 days in advance of the travel date to address obstacles related 
to acquiring a visa.
*             ALAC stated that the process of obtaining a visa for the host 
country as well as transit visas is often complex, expensive and 
time-consuming. Official invitation letters are typically needed, and depending 
on the country, air travel tickets may be required prior to starting the visa 
process.  ICANN should start the travel process sufficiently early to allow all 
participants to obtain their visas. In cases where the costs of travel to 
obtain visas, or the visa costs themselves are significantly in excess of those 
costs used in the per diem estimates, such costs should be reimbursed. Where 
possible, the local host should facilitate the process of obtaining visas for 
their country.

IV. Next Steps
Staff will synthesize these comments and update the Travel Procedures (to be 
called Travel Guidelines), and post for community comment.   These comments 
will also be used to formulate the financial assumptions for travel support to 
be used for the draft FY10 Operating Plan and Budget which is posted by the 
17th of May 2009.   All of these comments will be used by the Board Finance 
Committee and Board overall as part of their considerations in approving the 
FY10 Operating Plan and Budget for FY10.
Kevin Wilson
CFO
ICANN
kevin.wilson@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:kevin.wilson@xxxxxxxxx>