[council] Funding of ICANN Board candidate travel expenses and Election timing.

["Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>]

Colleagues:

During the last NC tele-meeting the NC discussed and voted on the
schedule for the upcoming ICANN board member election.

I wish to explain my position and why I voted as I did, and I wish to
clarify some potential mis-understandings about my suggestions of
financial aid for candidates.

According to the ICANN bylaws, the NC needs to present the (elected)
candidate to the ICANN secretary by 16 September, 2001, for seating on
the board in October.

I took the position of wishing to see the election happen as late as
possible, and in such a way as to allow face to face consultancy with my
constituents at the Montivedeo meeting.

I have two reasons for wanting the face to face time.

1. Many of our constituents, who are not native english speakers, or who
may be reluctant to express themselves on mailing lists, often get a
better chance to participate and exchange information at the face to
face meetings. Even though the candidates have all expressed their
positions on lists, there may be members of our constituency who do not
fully understand those positions. Allowing the face to face time
provides maximum opportunity for consultation within our constituency.

2. Because ccSO formation is now in process, and because the ALSC (At
Large Study Committee) will present their (draft) report just before
Montevideo, and because that ALSC report suggests re-organization of the
ICANN structure, we need to have the maximum period of consultation,
including face to face with the candidates before electing one of them
to a Board that will be voting on what the new ICANN structure will be.

Now, the issue came up at the NC tele-meeting that candidates who could
not attend the montevideo meetings might be dis-advantaged with respect
to campaigning for votes.

I suggested that anyone who is running for ICANN board should do
everything in their power to attend, as an expression of interest and
commitment. 

When someone suggested that candidates might be interested and
committed, but lack the financial resources to attend, I suggested that
they (those candidates) could get some funding.

I did not and do not suggest that ICANN, or the DNSO provide such
funding. Such funding should not come from ICANN. It should come from
sources outside of ICANN.

This idea goes along with my proposal for a wwTLD foundation, an
organization that would accept grants and funding to do ccTLD outreach
projects, such as registry software, technical assistance, and political
education. For example, the wwTLD foundation could provide travel
expenses for a ccTLD manager to attend a workshop or meeting.

Now as to my ideas of where the funding would or could come from for the
current slate of ICANN board candidates, the answer is simple.

1. The supporters of that candidate could supply the funds directly to
the candidate, even as candidates running for public election in many
countries raise money for their campaigns, advertising, travel, and
events such as rallies.

2. The candidates could seek travel funds from existing foundations that
specialize in providing grants for this purpose. In fact some of these
foundations are already providing travel grants to other persons
involved in Internet process.

for example:
Center for Democracy and Technology:
http://www.cdt.org/mission/activities2000.shtml

Markle foundation: 
http://www.markle.org/gpi/_gpi_index.stm

The Benton Foundation:
http://www.benton.org/

And there are several others.

I fully expect any person seeking such assistance to organize their own
financial support, and I am confident that the necessary sources of
funds are out there. It is up to the candidate to identify the sources
and to ask for the money. Or at least to recruit someone or some
organization who supports that candidate's position and will do the
fund-raising for them.

Peter de Blanc
ccTLD NC representative