PIR and constituency finances

[Norbert Klein]

Erick Iriarte Ahon wrote:

> Hi.. only an idea.
>
> If we ask for "funds" to PIR, to have members in the ICANN Meetings?, maybe
> we can define only one (1) travel por person per year (only to one
> meeting), to try (with this), to generate a global participation and not
> only a "elit-travel-class".
>
> I think is necessary funds to translate documents to another language, to
> conference call's, to maintenance website/listserver.
>
> Erick

=

Hi Erick,

I appreciate your concern about translation, as English is not my
languageeither, and I have lived for many years in non-English-speaking
societies. - I am editing a weekly review of the Khmer language press,
translated into English. I know EVERY DAY about the difficulties faced
when making selections what to translate and what not to translate
(because there is such a multitude of interesting items), and how
difficult and time consuming it is to check timely if the translators
did catch a specific contexts and the translation makes sense, or if it
is just "correct" in terms of the dictionary, but does not really
address a subtle, but most important point. – Therefore I think it is an
almost impossible task for us, that is: for our elected ExCom, because
decisions about what to translate would often have to be made very
quickly, if we are not just asking for translations to be archived after
things are already too late to react.

Though I share your concern, I would not be able to make practical
suggestions, unless we have a lot of money.


As for your idea about travel grant allocations "only one (1) travel per
person per year (only to one meeting)" I do not agree. - Some people may
consider me as part of an "elite-travel-class" because I attended
several ICANN meetings, some, but not half of them funded by the
Salzburgseminar travel grants. It was the policy of Salzburgseminar to
support one person not more that twice for ICANN participation, and I
had several exchanges with them, arguing against it (saying clearly that
I do not mind if they do not fund my travel any more, but pleading that
they should abolish this policy in general).  I was supported more than
twice, I state gratefully.

Why did I raise this question? I had observed that the policy of
limiting travel grants to two occasions - "to generate a global
participation" was their argument also – brought a number of new persons
to ICANN meetings, but very few of them ever showed up on the NCDNHC or
later the NCUC list. One could even argue that this effort, supposedly
to provide the opportunity of participation to many, at the end did not
result much in a strengthening of the NCUC, but to regularly support a
small number more frequently might have achieved this goal. - But this
is of course open for debate.

Let me give a specific example: I do not know who else could have made a
better contribution than Kathy Kleinman in the WHOIS debate, from the
NCUC background, in Rome. She is a really committed person AND a
specialist in these legal matters. If there is any follow-up meeting
soon where strong vested interests are confronting each other again, I
would like to ask again Kathy to represent the NCUC, with travel funds
allocated through our ExCom, and not to send another person to generate
a wider global participation.

You know that we often agree – but here I have a clearly different opinion.

Norbert