Travel Support policy document

[Adam Peake <ajp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the travel support proposal.

I support Olga Cavalli's comment 
<http://forum.icann.org/lists/travel-support-draft/msg00004.html>.
Further:

> The policy proposes that there should no longer be a travel
> support distinction between Nomcom selectees and other
> counselors with respect to travel support.
I am concerned that NomCom appointees might no longer be guaranteed 
travel support. Any such policy should be coordinated with the NomCom 
review. I have been involved in four NomComs, and based on that 
experience I think it would be extremely difficult to recruit high 
quality candidates for non-Board positions unless there was an 
assurance that travel and accommodation expenses would be provided. 
All NomCom appointees are expected to travel and participate in ICANN 
meetings, a commitment to do is a condition of becoming a candidate. 
Travel procedures must carefully consider the role of NomCom 
appointees in the ICANN, their role in representing the public 
interest rather than those of the concerned industry and how any 
weakening of their role might affect ICANN.
All current NomCom appointees, and I believe also those who have 
submitted applications during the current 2008 process, did so with 
the expectation that their expenses for attending ICANN meetings 
would be covered. This document 
<http://nomcom.icann.org/positions-2008.html> explains most 
conditions to candidates, it hasn't changed much over the years. 
Example:
"All NomCom appointees are expected to travel and participate in 
ICANN meetings. Reasonable expenses incurred in attending meetings 
will be reimbursed."
Other similar text, this for GNSO but it's common for most positions:

"As stated in the ICANN Bylaws, such support shall not include an 
obligation for ICANN to fund travel expenses incurred by GNSO 
participants for travel to any meeting of the GNSO or for any other 
purpose. However, ICANN has customarily furnished travel expenses for 
Nominating Committee appointed Council members to ICANN meetings. 
This custom is planned to continue, but is subject to the Bylaw 
statement. [Bylaws Article X, Section 4, see 
<http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#X-4>]"
I doubt many would apply if there was not a very strong expectation 
that expenses would be covered.
Board appointees are not effected by the draft travel support 
proposals, but other positions the NomCom selects are. The ccNSO is a 
three year appointment, ALAC and GNSO two years so it will take some 
time for any new policy to work its way through.
About the mechanics of the procedure.  It would be cheaper if tickets 
were bought further in advance.  Why 45 days rather than, for 
example, 60?  If volunteers who are expecting to work at the meeting 
are to be denied travel, then less than 45 days may not enough notice 
for them to consider other options, or for committees to rearrange 
their work.
As someone who has benefited from travel support, I strongly suggest 
the procedure allow least cost upgradeable fares and permit some 
flexibility to use frequent flyer plans. Booked well in advance these 
are not greatly more expensive, booking conditions also tend to be 
slightly more flexible, i.e. lower cancellation fees, changeable 
dates etc.
Past experience suggests ICANN's travel agent is not necessarily 
cheap.  This may have changed since I used that service. However, 
ticket prices vary greatly by region. Has ICANN investigated lower 
cost travel services, there are many that specialize in serving the 
international non-for profit sector.
The travel procedure should be considered along with the new 
proposals on reforming ICANN meetings.  As the dates of ICANN 
meetings to October 2010 are known, why can't the deadline for 
deciding the location be at least 12 months before to allow 
negotiation of cheaper accommodation?
Editorial: The NomCom has an associate chair not vice chair.

Thanks,

Adam

Adam Peake
GLOCOM Tokyo