As this matter obviously concerns me in a number of ways to be honest I didn’t want to get involved in it, but there are some issues that I think I need to respond to.
I have been an active participant in all aspects of the IANA transition from Day 1 of the transition, I have worked in and/or followed all 3 operational communities work and on the names side I have been active in both the CWG and CCWG. Unfortunately I
have a day job that I need to complete in order to feed myself and my family, and as such given that most of the meetings that I have been unable to attend have been during my working hours please forgive me for not being able to maintain the seemingly required
thresholds of meeting attendance figures that are required to qualify as an active participant.
My work on PTI, Design Team L, the IANA Budget and other matters on the CWG with Matt, Robin and Avri, and on the IRP, Confidentiality Disclosure Framework, the AoC Incorporation, and helping guide our counsel to the NCSG goals on the CCWG have taken up
20-30 hours per week for the last number of months. While working on other matters such as the PPSAI PDP, the IAG on WHOIS Conflicts with National Laws and various NCSG positions this seemingly doesn’t count for anything because I haven’t been able to attend
an arbitrary number of conference calls.
If this is the response when an active participant asks for support then I think we have much to learn on how to engage and get members active in this community.
With regards to my filing individual comments somehow being construed as me working on behalf of commercial interests, let me be blatantly clear as to my motivation for doing so.
I had an opinion that the SMCM should be comprised of the Supporting Organisations of ICANN
only and that the Advisory Committee's should not be granted voting roles, this was a position that I did not feel would gain traction within NCSG having had discussions with a number of members and participants so I filed my individual comments to reflect
that position. I will note I also worked on the NCSG comments on the CCWG (Amongst many other comments I have worked on for the NCSG)
If somehow my position as a proponent of non-commercial interests is in question please tell me so and I will submit my resignation from NCSG effective immediately if its members do not feel I am representative of their views.
-James
From: William Drake
Date: Sunday 20 September 2015 09:16
To: Milton Mueller, Edward Morris, James Gannon
Cc: NCSG Members
Subject: Re: A Response To Milton
Gentlemen
What we've got here is failure to communicate…obviously it’d have been desirable if your respective views had been shared and talked through among our CCWGites and fellow travelers, e.g. in the NCSG PC, before any external action was taken, but
I recognize everyone is completely under the water with the press of the work + life stuff including health. Hopefully we can increase the coordination prior to LA and Dublin so we at least understand each others’ thinking better and maybe even find more
bits of common ground.
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?
I understand the objection and if others agree this case should have been pressed with Johnathan Robinson. But it sounds like it wasn't so we have to deal with the parameters the chairs have set, objections after the fact don't matter.
As Robin and Brett, two of our Members who will be in Los Angeles, are aware if I pass a medical exam on Tuesday and obtain flight clearance I will attend the Meeting in Los Angeles at my own expense. I very easily could have applied for the travel support
and returned it if the exam does not go well but that would have been unprofessional and I don’t do things like that. It’s simply wrong. I don’t want ICANN to reserve funding for someone who is not 100% sure he or she can attend.
Ed this is not right, you should not be going at your own expense if it’s going to mean dining at food banks etc. Please sort out your parameters and if you can go send an application to NCUC ASAP. In accordance with our travel policy, you would be eligible
for support up to $1,000, which would at least cover much of your plane ticket, and you could sleep rough on the USC quad or something. I would strongly advocate to the NCUC EC that we offer you such support.
James has applied for support for Dublin and received support for BA so his case is a little more difficult at least optically, but given the circumstances I at least would support making a similar accommodation. Our little piggy bank is precisely for this
purpose, to get key people to crucial meetings. We can’t take it with us, so let’s use it.
And in any event let’s take full advantage of the remote participation.
Best
Bill