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
>