+1

The only thing I would add is that one of the prices we pay for 'voting
our consciences' in council and elsewhere is sometimes being challenged
to explain ourselves.

Milton challenged, and Ed responded.

Perhaps it was a bit more acrimonious than it might have been, but that
may be in NCSG's nature.
And perhaps the explanation was more detailed than some of us might have
written, that may be in Ed's nature and a trait we have often benefited
from.

The question was posed and the response given.

avri


On 21-Sep-15 15:19, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> Hi Milton and All,
>
> We all agree that Ed has been a “fantastic contributor to the
> Noncommercials.” He has devoted thousands of hours to policy
> discussions and documents, to Independent Review Process work,
> document requests, GNSO Council preparation and leadership and much
> more. As with a core of people in the NCSG, he has devoted enormous
> amounts of his professional and personal time and skills to advancing
> the interests and concerns of the noncommercial community. Ed has been
> very successful, and I, for one, am very glad that he has taken lion’s
> share of many important projects.
>
>
> What we appear to be arguing about here, and strangely on a public
> list, is whether the CCWG participation and attendance policy makes
> sense and should be a basis for determining funding for a CCWG
> in-person meeting. The answer, of course, is no, every community
> should have equal representation. But that’s not the policy that was
> adopted and that not the way that slots for a meeting taking place
> very shortly are being allocated.
>
>
> What I see as the underlying issue as is how many fights a person can
> take on by himself or herself? In our busy, multi-pronged ICANN policy
> community, it’s always a judgement call: fight everything, or fight
> selectively. When time, resources, health, and energy are limited (as
> they are for all of us), we must be selective. Sometimes we choose the
> substantive fights over the procedural fights.
>
>
> What I have always valued about NCSG is that, with our limited
> resources, we have picked our fights reasonably and well. And then we
> have supported each other. That’s the most important part of the
> process -- supporting the work that is being done and the people who
> are dong it. Especially those already working night and day. 
>
>
> Unlike other Stakeholder Groups, we allow our GNSO Councilors to vote
> their consciences and we have a long tradition of allowing our working
> group and task force members to do the same thing. Of course, that
> means we will disagree from time to time, but that diversity is part
> of what makes our SG special and strong.
>
>
> Ed, I deeply appreciate your expertise and brilliance on ICANN
> matters, and hope you will stay in the NCSG and continue your terrific
> work.
>
>  
>
> Best,
>
> Kathy
>
>
>
> On 9/20/2015 2:26 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>>
>> Ed:
>>
>> I understand and support your extensive work on behalf of NCUC and
>> NCSG. I know that we usually agree on both tactics and strategy. So I
>> did not send the message I sent casually.
>>
>>  
>>
>> You’ve been a fantastic contributor to the Noncommercials. But I also
>> know you can let personal animosities get in the way of your
>> judgment, and I still think this is one of those cases. I have to say
>> I find your explanation inadequate, though parts of it are reasonable.
>>
>>  
>>
>> What gets lost in your lengthy explanation are some very simple,
>> fundamental things. James and Carlos were willing and able to go, and
>> no one else from NCSG that you contacted (Farzaneh, Matt) was. If we
>> want NCSG to be represented at this critical CCWG meeting, James or
>> Carlos should have been the next choices to push for. Either of those
>> two would have been acceptable to me, but clearly James (as someone
>> we sent to Paris and who wrote extensive comments on the CCWG
>> proposal) is an obvious choice.
>>
>>  
>>
>> I totally reject the proposition that attendance percentages are the
>> only factor that should guide the decision. This is classic GNSO
>> politics. Set up a completely arbitrary metric (as if someone who
>> attends 83% of the meetings is better than someone who attends 60%)
>> and pretend that it is objective when it is obvious such a metric
>> will privilege business representatives who make this their full time
>> job. Are there no other “objective measures?” How about who wrote the
>> most words in their comment? That’s objective. How about who many
>> other representatives from the same SG are able to attend? That’s
>> objective. Why was attendance percentage elevated to this magical
>> status?
>>
>>  
>>
>> What NCSG representatives need to be asking themselves is not “who
>> attended the most meetings?” but “who represents us best?” “Who is
>> going to be most responsive to our concerns?” “Who has sufficient
>> knowledge of the issues and sufficient familiarity with the people
>> and processes to be effective and do a good job – for _/us/_.” As for
>> attendance percentages, Greg Shatan is a paid lobbyist for the
>> trademark interests. This is his job. James is a volunteer. It’s not
>> surprising that Greg can attend more of the endless phone calls run
>> by the CCWG.  Still, someone who attends nearly 40% of the numerous
>> meetings and was in Buenos Aires and Paris and has written extensive
>> comments about the CCWG proposal is well above the bar for consideration.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Ed, I think you did a pretty good job of explaining why you supported
>> Greg. If indeed he is someone who will resist the board’s attempt to
>> eliminate accountability measures, it is good that he can go. What
>> you seem to overlook, however, is that Greg would end up in LA
>> regardless of whether the GNSO funds him or not. And Greg would
>> probably get GNSO funding regardless of whether you supported him
>> over our own people. So the rationale for your actions escape me.
>>
>>  
>>
>> I think the idea that James is a shill for commercial interests
>> because he filed comments in the name of his own one-man consultancy
>> is rubbish. Stop the personal attacks. ICANN accountability does not,
>> in any way that I can understand, intersect with the business
>> interest of his internet security practice, except in a negative
>> sense (James would likely ensure that he will never get a contract
>> from ICANN).
>>
>>  
>>
>> So I’m sorry you feel offended by my challenge, but I think it needed
>> to be made, and I think it’s healthy and all too rare for this
>> community to be calling their representatives to account.
>>
>>  
>>
>> If you want to go to LA yourself, ask the EC. I’d support it. I don’t
>> think you should go on your own nickel, based on what you’ve been
>> telling us about your problems. On the other hand, if you choose not
>> to go to Los Angeles, don’t blame it on me: it’s your decision. I am
>> not responsible if you choose to sulk.
>>
>>  
>>
>> By the way, if you are dissatisfied with the so-called “ICG proposal”
>> (which is really just a compilation of the names, numbers and
>> protocols proposals), don’t drag that into this controversy. It
>> muddies the waters. Make your point in the NCSG comments, on the
>> list, etc. I would be happy to have more discussion and input about
>> what is happening in ICG.
>>
>>  
>>
>> --MM
>>
>>  
>>
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus