RE: [ga] Re: Funding of ICANN Board candidate travel expense

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

Danny, have you missed ALL of the discussion about funding of candidates
travel?

1. Philip does not have the authority to spend DNSO funds.
2. ICANN should not pay for the candidates.
3. I have posted on this list sources of funds. To my knowledge, NO
candidate has asked any of these sources for travel money to date.
4. Joop is receiving travel funds from one of the sources, so no one can
say it is not possible.
5. I suggested private funding of the candidates.
6 I offerred to personally provide matching funds for every candidate.

So far, all that is going on here is aimless discussion. What is needed
is for the candidates who wish to come and cannot afford it to ask for
the money they need from their supporters, and from the foundations.

As far as whether or not there is a formal presentatoion by candidates
to the GA, or the constituencies or not, it ultimately does not matter.
Those candidates that are physically there will campaign in the lobby,
the corridors, the coctail lounges, and the constituency meetings.

The reality is that candidates who are physically there in montevideo
WILL have an advantage. It is not an ideal world.

Peter de Blanc



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org] On Behalf Of
DannyYounger@cs.com
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 7:57 PM
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: [ga] Re: Funding of ICANN Board candidate travel expense


Dear members,

Leah has raised a significant issue that is worthy of debate.  She
states:  
"Furthermore, if all candidates cannot be present in Montevideo, perhaps
none 
of them should be presented as a part of the meetings to avoid unfair 
advantage."

As I was in favor of a candidates' forum/debate/question-answer session
in 
Montevideo, upon hearing Peter deBlanc's remark during the Names Council

teleconference that funding might be available for the candidates, I
wrote to 
Phil Sheppard regarding this issue.  My position was that the
constituencies 
had voted in favor of a later date for their NC vote in order to have
the 
possibility of face-to-face meetings with the candidates, this decision 
having been made in the full knowledge that certain candidates might not
be 
able to attend owing to financial considerations.  

Knowing that the DNSO has a budget category for "travel" and another
budget 
category for "contingencies", I argued that we have an opportunity to
provide 
every candidate with an equal opportunity to be heard in person, and
that a 
failure to do so would not be in the best interests of those
constituencies 
that expressed a desire to personally meet all the candidates.  

Phil sheppard made a counter-proposal to hold "telephone hustings for
such 
candidates".   

At this point in time, I tend to share Leah's view that any session with
only 
some of the candidates present may in fact serve to discriminate against
the 
other candidates, but I haven't as yet come to a definate conclusion.
What 
is sufficiently clear is that the Council Chair will not authorize funds
for 
the candidates' travel expenses. 

I do have my doubts about a telephone session (having noticed the 
connectivity issues we faced at Stockholm, and the problems at the last
ALSC 
session), but perhaps there is some merit in this proposal...  

I leave it to you to decide whether the GA should sponsor a session for
the 
candidates.  Please let me know your thoughts.

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html