> -----Original Message-----
> 
> Milton is asking "what is the value added?" and "at what individual and
> collective cost?". I may grumble about a 2am conference call, but that is
> better than 4-5-6 days of travel and face-to-face time to achieve little more
> than what a couple of middle-of-the-night conference calls can achieve.

Thank you Sam. Having read others' messages, however, I am willing to back off my recommendation to boycott the meeting. But going forward, we can ask that there be no more of these meetings and we can make clear our belief that the value add of these meetings does not pass the bar. 

Ed was right: the idea that we have some special affinity within the noncontracted party house is pure myth. I am actually a strong believer in the 2-house voting structure, I believe it has done a lot to balance the GNSO and hold things in check. But the NCPH is a vote aggregation and consensus threshold structure, not an affinity group. We interact with CSG face to face many many times in many venues (regular ICANN meetings, IGFs national, regional and global, congressional hearings) and the intersessional meeting was always their agenda not ours.