Re: [registrars] Motion on Travel Funding

[Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10-Dec-07, at 11:58 PM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:

> As per my previous comments I believe the ICANN budget could be and
> should be scrutinised in many different ways. To assume that this  
> money
> potentially being allocated for travel funding  is going to increase
> "taxes" seems a bit misguided. ICANN won't raise its "tax" (not  
> without
> a lynching from the Registrars), but they will spend the money -  
> make no
> mistake about that. It will simply use these funds elsewhere (ICANN
> dinners, badges and buttons, new logos etc). The same money just gets
> apportioned out in a different direction - just like in government.
>
> I would like to see these funds used for more positive pursuits and I
> believe having a fully functioning GNSO is one of those (especially
> having been involved in the process).
>
> Why should the GNSO be any different to the ICANN board (who from  
> what I
> here are seeking remuneration by the way) or the Nominating Committee,
> all of which have their travel funded?


Three things:

1) The Councillors representing the Registry, Registrar, Non- 
commercial, ISP/Telco and Business constituencies have a stellar track  
record of participation in the face to face meetings. I don't see how  
underwriting the travel of these professional interests will lead to a  
more functional GNSO. These folks regularly attend the meetings  
because it is in their best interests to do so. They will do so  
regardless of who pays the airline.
2) The Board of Directors and the GNSO perform two incredibly  
different functions. Board members have a legal responsibility for the  
affairs of the corporation. Commercial and non-profit Board members  
are typically modestly compensated and usually receive reimbursement  
for full travel costs. If ICANN wishes to attract competent Board  
members, they must compensate and reimburse their Board of Directors  
in some way. I find it remarkable that ICANN has not moved to paying  
its directors already.
On the other hand, GNSO Councillors do not have a legal responsibility  
to the corporation. The opposite really - Councillors are eelcted to  
represent the interests of others - i.e. you have been elected to  
represent the interests of registrars, not ICANN. On this basis, I  
believe it would be reasonable for you to seek funding from the  
Constituency you represent, but not from ICANN. I would definitely be  
prepared to consider increasing our contribution to the Constituency  
to help defray additional costs such as travel funding etc.
As a side note on this point, reimbursement for travel for the  
Nominating Committee is fairly limited and certainly does not include  
business class travel nor anywhere near the stipend that the Council  
seems to be seeking.
3) Finally, and most importantly, you claim that funding an additional  
$750,000 in travel per year won't lead to increased fees. Where do you  
believe that the money will come from? What programs will be  
discontinued in the next budget cycle to take this additional expense  
into account? Adrian - you are an executive, and you have intimate  
knowledge of how budgets are prepared and negotiated. It is foolish to  
think that this won't simply be passed along as an extra few cents  
come budget time. Every year, we negotiate these fees with ICANN. We  
need to start being proactive and strategic about getting these fees  
lowered through other means in advance of the negotiations with ICANN.  
This will only lead to a better starting position when it comes to the  
negotiations and ultimately, lower overall fees.
Ross Rader
Director, Retail Services
t. 416.538.5492
c. 416.828.8783
http://www.domaindirect.com

"To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow."
- Erik Nupponen