Hello Prof,

While i have such thinking as well, the fact that people like Avri has also
contributed tirelessly[1] made it difficult for me to confirm my thoughts
about him. I just hope you have proof to validate what you indicated to be
the status of Greg, otherwise I don't think it's fair and appropriate to
publicly make declarations as this.

That said, I really wonder how you think the number of words written would
have been more objective than meeting attendance. The fact is that none of
those are appropriate way to determine who gets selected and attendance may
just be closest. Even if the word counts were used, I think Greg did as
much content that would have qualified him.

I noted in Ed's comment that efforts were made to reach out to James to
determine if part funding was feasible.

Overall I think the face 2 face meeting is beginning to feel like arming
for war and I really wonder whether much can be achieved with such mindset.

Regards
1. Unless Avri's is occupying a paid position as one of the experts (ATRT).
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 20 Sep 2015 07:28, "Mueller, Milton L" <
[log in to unmask]> 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
>
>
>