(To NCSG Members: Please forgive the length of this post. Milton asked a question that could be implied as impugning the integrity of my work on your behalf. Your respect is important enough to me that I felt I needed to respond in length. Thanks for all of your work in support of the causes we all believe in. Best, Ed)

 

---------

 

 

--------

 

 

Hi Milton,

 

 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain my action on Council. I’m sorry you formed your question in the rather accusatory manner in which you did and I’d suggest that things are not as black and white as you portray them to be. I’ll answer your question in a comprehensive fact based manner. I’m just sorry after four years of my hard work here you did not give me some benefit of the doubt and phrase things in a more respectful and neutral manner.

 

First, for the unaware, the GNSO was given an extra travel slot to the CCWG meeting next weekend in Los Angeles. It was left to the GNSO Council to decide who would receive the funding.

 

When I learned of this funding I immediately reached out to Matt Shears to gauge his interest. Matt is a true civil society champion, has been extremely active not only in the CCWG but in many subgroups dating back to the winter months, has been quite effective in his representation, has attended previous F2F meetings at the expense of his civil society group: in my view he earned the right to receive funding for the trip. Matt, unfortunately, was unable to attend the meeting next weekend.

 

You will note in the link you provided (https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg17466.html ), Milton,  that Johnathan Robinson, GNSO Council Chair, had proposed that the trip be awarded on an objective basis: CCWG attendance to date. With some qualifications, I thought this was a good general approach and supported Jonathan’s suggestion, as did my fellow NCSG Councillors Avri Doria ( https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg17462.html ) and Amr Elsadar ( https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg17463.html). No other GNSO Councillor from the NCSG participated in this discussion, at least on list.

 

With those criteria in mind, I then checked the CCWG attendance logs:

 

 

 

On the basis of the cited criteria, CCWG participation and attendance, Farzaneh Badii was the strongest NCSG candidate for funding. Farzi’s attendance rate of 72.7%  (24 of the 33 meetings she was eligible to attend) was the best of our CCWG Participants. Farzi has also been working with Sarah Clayton and myself on a comprehensive analysis of ICANN’s transparency policy and would be well prepared to push for this NCSG priority in Los Angeles. I reached out to Farzi but, like Matt, she was unable to travel to Los Angeles that weekend and suggested, instead, that I myself should consider going to the meeting. I will address my personal participation later in this post.

 

Two NCSG members did ask for funding consideration: Carlos Gutierrez and James Gannon. I’m not sure which ‘one of our own’ you were referring to, Milton, when questioning my judgement so I will deal with each NCSG member applicant separately.

 

Carlos is a fellow GNSO Councillor who I would generally support for anything, within reason, he would want to do. He is experienced, intelligent and effective. In the context of the Los Angeles meeting his prior experience on the GAC would be quite valuable. Unfortunately, Carlos has been busy elsewhere fighting for civil society objectives this year and with an attendance rate of 23.2% (13 of 56 meetings) he simply was not competitive for the travel award. Carlos realized this and withdrew his name from consideration

 

Nor was James Gannon. James has certainly made contributions to the CCWG, and has been funded for and has attended two face-to-face CCWG meetings, but under the criteria proposed by Jonathan Robinson, and supported by all of those Councillors who commented, James was not competitive for the grant. His attendance rate of 36.8% (14 of the 38 meetings he was eligible to attend) simply was not good enough, given the announced and unannounced candidates for the travel award. That did not stop my efforts, though, to try to get James to Los Angeles.

 

I communicated with our CCWG Member, Robin Gross, and she made it clear it would be in our interest if James attended the meeting. I tried to make it happen. I communicated with James, told him the current situation, asked him for data (such as number of posts) that would allow me to argue for him despite the stated criteria. I then asked him for names of Councillors from other SG’s that would support him. The posting data was understandably was not forthcoming (who wants to count numbers of posts?), one name of a potential Council supporter was provided but despite my best efforts I was unable to get confirmation from him in the tight time frame available.

 

I contacted staff to see if might be possible to split the GNSO award into two half awards. My thought was that the NCUC would then consider giving James money covering the other half. The response from staff was uncertain. I then sent the following message to James via Skype: “What if I propose to split the award. Would that work for you? If we get NCUC to pay the other half. I’d be happy to advance it to you, if needed, and have Milton reimburse me”.  That message was sent to James at 11:14 on Wednesday morning. I did not receive a response from James. As such, I did not pursue the matter further.

 

I should note for clarification, Milton, that your name was mentioned in your capacity as NCUC Treasurer. I know it sometimes takes you a fairly long time to process paperwork and reimburse people for expenses so I thought if that was a problem I could assist James out of my personal funds, if necessary. I recall that the last time I waited for NCUC reimbursement for expenses I wound up having to go to a food bank so I could eat. I didn’t want James to have to do that.

 

Why propose Greg Shatan?

 

During the nine months I’ve dedicated to working on the CCWG I have fought, in personal terms, with Greg Shatan on the issues more than I have with any other CCWG member. We have two law firms on the CCWG, rather than one, largely because Greg pushed the Sidley firm, I pushed the Adler firm, and we fought to a draw. It’s gotten personal at times: Greg actually had to spend some time after the Paris meeting rejecting my accusation he used “bullying” tactics to achieve his goals. On the legal sub-team I accused him of having a conflict of interest. He opened one call, in response to my claims, by telling the subgroup he really did have integrity. He’s attacked me on less than policy-oriented grounds as well. We are fierce competitors, often opposing each other on less than friendly grounds.

 

The CCWG is different than other groups in that the policy divisions are not as predictable. I should note, Milton, that one of “our own” that presumably you wanted me to support for the travel grant often presents in the CCWG as a representative of commercial interests, a private consultancy, rather than a proponent of the non-commercial community (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/pdfy6WGvu4vOO.pdf). That doesn’t matter to me. During the past nine months on the CCWG I’ve been aligned with commercial interests, registers, registries and people whose origin is a mystery to me. It’s their positions on the issues that matters, and on some issues Greg stinks. No question. Yet on the most important issue facing the CCWG in Los Angeles, that of response to the Board proposal to eviscerate much of the CCWG work to date, Greg Shatan has done more and better work than anyone else in the CCWG:

 

 

Mr. Shatan has a unique skill set and the correct policy views on the biggest issue facing the CCWG in Los Angeles. I should note the meeting is being held where and when it is to facilitate “dialogue” with the Board. I worry about capture by the Board or capitulation by the CCWG leadership. Greg has always supported hard accountability.  His on site value goes further than that, though.

 

Greg is a former law partner with CCWG Counsel Holly Gregory. Holly sometimes has trouble understanding the multi-stakeholder model and the participants therein. Many of the CCWG members who are not lawyers have trouble understanding Holly. Greg has impressed me with his ability to translate each to each. With what I expect to be a large presence of Jones Day lawyers in Los Angeles supporting the Board position his value to the community, that of helping our lawyers explain things to the community and vice versa, is great and needed.

 

I should also note that if he did not receive funding for the trip Greg would still be participating in the meeting remotely. On the issues we disagree with Greg would still be heard. On “normal” issues there is not a lot of difference in impact between remote and on site participation. On the major issue facing us in Los Angeles there is, for the reasons stated. If work stream 2 is eliminated, as Greg points out has been proposed by the Board, our work in transparency, human rights and other reforms will be curtailed or stopped.

 

I agree with you, Milton, we are short handed in Los Angeles. I wish we had more civil society members there. I wish we had more civil society members active in the CCWG.  Despite everything I have just written, if Farzi or Matt had been able to go to Los Angeles I would have fought tooth and nail for them. Based upon the criteria, both would have had a chance to be selected for the travel grant. Although I was trying to be creative on behalf of James, the fact is Carlos (23% attendance) and James ( 36% attendance) did not have the numbers to be legitimate candidates for this grant when people like Greg Shatan (83% attendance) had applied and the criteria to be used was CCWG participation. It’s that simple.

 

In the future, such as with the Whois working group, if faced with a similar Council selection I don’t want our NCSG candidate with 83% attendance to be rejected in favour of an IPC candidate with 23% attendance. Our candidates for this grant were not even close to being competitive based upon the objective criteria and would not have been selected regardless of anything I did or did not view. If James or Carlos wanted to go to Los Angeles they should have attended more meetings of the CCWG.

 

I should also note there was one other candidate for funding with a participation rate of 80% that I believe would have been worse on more issues than Greg will be, without the upside he brings. By backing Greg I caused this individual, who had reached out to me for support, not to submit his applications for consideration.

 

If I were honest I would have to admit that here is one other potential NCSG candidate who would have been competitive for the grant and had he asked to be considered likely would have received the travel award. I should address that issue because that candidate is me.

 

My CCWG attendance has sunk to 64%, due largely to my recent hospitalization. Yet I believe other factors would have been weighed in my favour. I am the lead for a nascent WS2 group that, although currently in hibernation, we hope to re-activate very soon (https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Office+of+Ombudsman). I was  on the Executive Team of the Legal Subteam ( https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam ), am on Work Party 1 ( https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+--+Community+Empowerment ), Work Party 2 ( https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP2+--+Review+and+Redress ), various subteams of each, and am a member  the Stress Test working party ( https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+--+Stress+Tests+Work+Party ). I was also a member of Work Area 1 ( https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51413856) and Work Area 4 (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51413864 ). I am the only CCWG non appointed Participant to have had a minority statement selected for publication in the current 2^nd draft CCWG report ( https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53783460 ) and my most  recent public comment ( http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/pdfDIhYVAHMeR.pdf) has one major item unique to it  that will be brought up for discussion in Los Angeles. I am also an incumbent member of the GNSO Council ( http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm ), the body choosing the grant recipient.  I believe my fellow Councillors would have looked favourably upon my request had I chosen to apply.

 

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.

 

So, Milton, let me review your question, comment on your question and, lastly, summarize my answer.

 

-----

 

“Why are our own GNSO Councilors supporting trademark lawyers over NCSG members for travel support to this critical CCWG meeting in Los Angeles?

 

Ed, this demands an explanation. The L.A. meeting is very critical to the future of the CCWG plan and we are going to be badly unrepresented there. Our Councillors need to be accountable to our Stakeholder Group, and it’s inexplicable to see one of our councilors leading the charge to turn aside one of our own in favor of someone with a bit of a checkered record on policy issues.”

 

-----

 

First, I don’t need to be lectured on the importance of the Los Angeles meeting and what is going to be discussed there. I’ve been continuously involved in the CCWG from the first meeting on December 9, 2014. Even while hospitalized I dictated a post while hooked up to a breathing tube. I don’t parachute in and parachute out, dropping a verbal bomb every now and then, like some.

 

Second, I’m very happy to be held accountable by our Stakeholder Group. I should be. Those who are involved know I’ve worked countless hours for this Group, from public comments to representation on Council to my work, as above, on the CCWG. I’ve also had some notable success on behalf of the NCSG in my work.  I try to always conduct myself in a professional, respectful manner in the hope that others will treat me in the same way. When that doesn’t happen I find it reflects more on the other party involved than it does upon myself.

 

Third, the world is not black and white, Milton. There is a lot of grey. Your question does not reflect that. “Leading the charge to turn aside one of our own”…no. It’s called working with others to set criteria and then professionally managing the wider Council. It’s easy to criticize and take pot shots from the sidelines.  It’s a lot harder when you have to work with others to, well, make things work.

 

You do know this, Milton. When I expressed dismay at the rather poor proposal that came out of the ICG, for which you were our appointee (and it is piss poor) I didn’t attack you or pose a biased question on a public list questioning your competence or integrity.  I spoke to you privately, you explained the politics of the situation, I accepted your explanation. I’m sorry you did not give me the same courtesy.

 

Fourth, I am always happy to explain my positions and actions on Council and elsewhere to any Member of the NCSG. That is part of what this volunteer position entails. I will not, however, in the future dignify what can best be classified as an “attack/lecture question” with a response. Please ask any question you want and, if you don’t like my response, then attack me. Attack me / lecture me, as you ask the question and you, or anyone else who engages in such tactics, will not get a response in the future. I will no longer give respectability to tactics like this that lowers, rather than elevates, our standards of discussion here in the NCSG.

 

To summarize my response to your query:

 

1.  The GNSO received support for one additional traveler to the CCWG meeting in Los Angeles;

 

2. The standard for selection by the GNSO Council was based, generally, on CCWG participation rates;

 

3. I reached out to ALL NCSG members of the CCWG with attendance rates above 50%. These were the only candidates in my opinion with, given the criteria,  any realistic shot of selection by the Council. Matt Shears (51.8%) and Farzi Badii (72.8%) were unable to travel to Los Angeles the weekend in question. I (64.3%) chose not to apply for the funding and will attend the Meeting at my own expense if doctors clear me to fly following a medical exam I’m scheduled to have on Tuesday. Matt, Farzi and myself are the only non-funded NCSG members of the CCWG with attendance rates above 50%.

 

4. Two NCSG members applied for the travel support. Both had CCWG participation rates of well under 50% . In my view, they were not serious candidates for funding due to their poor attendance rate.

 

5. I was aware of two potential candidates for the travel support with participation rates over 80%. In my view, Greg Shatan is closer to our policy views than the other candidate. In addition, Greg has certain skills and a position on and knowledge of the major issue confronting the CCWG in Los Angeles, Board nullification of the CCWG work, that in my view perfectly aligns with NCSG interests.

 

6. After conferring with our CCWG Member, Robin Gross, I engaged in conversation with James Gannon to try to find some way of helping him meet the stated criteria for the grant. That being unsuccessful I then inquired as to the possibility of splitting the travel award. I wrote to James asking if that would be acceptable, suggesting the NCUC might come up with the other half of the money if I was successful on Council. I then offered to advance him the money pending receipt from the NCUC, using my personal funds, knowing the Treasurer of the Constituency sometimes takes a considerably long period to reimburse monies due to his own personal situation. James never responded to that Skype message.

 

You wanted an explanation, Milton, you have one.  Feel free to criticize me for believing that NCSG candidates with 23% and 36% participation rates were not serious candidates when the agreed criteria was participation and other candidates were coming in with 84% and 80%. attendance for a single award. Feel free to criticize me for agreeing with that criteria: there are too many tourists in ICANN, people who are funded and show up at meetings and don’t work. That criteria was imperfect but it was better than none at all. Feel free to criticize my belief that Mr. Shatan was better for our policy positions than the other realistic candidates. I’m happy to discuss that with you.

 

Yet you didn’t ask me those questions. You posed your question in a rather sophomoric way, posting it as an attack or, at best, as a lecture/attack. You implied that I capriciously supported a trademark lawyer over “one of our own” as if doing so was a traitorous act. I resent that. NO ONE HAS DONE MORE TO BRING NCSG MEMBERS TO THE CCWG F2F MEETINGS THAN ME. NO ONE. Your implication otherwise is unfair and wrong.

 

When Robin Gross had flight difficulties and could not attend the CCWG face to face meeting in Istanbul, I identified James Gannon as our only CCWG participant within reasonable travel distance that could attend the meeting on short notice. I reached out to James, found he was willing to come, only for us to have our request for a funded replacement for Robin rejected by ICANN. I then personally went to senior ICANN staff on the ground in Turkey and was able to get that decision reversed. It’s to James credit he was willing to come and volunteer on short notice, but it only happened because I made it happen.

 

When this latest trip became available all of our Counselors were informed. As far as I know I’m the only Counselor to check the attendance log and reach out to all NCSG members who had a realistic chance of receiving the grant. I’m fairly certain that I’m the only Councilor who tried to come  up with alternate means of getting more of our members to Los Angeles and actually was willing to dig into his own personal bank account to do so. I’ve been around here for about four years and no one has ever offered me a short-term loan so I could attend an ICANN event.

 

Milton, have you done anything to impact our participation levels in Los Angeles? It may surprise you but the answer is “yes”.

 

The way asked your question implied potential malfeasance on my part. It hit at my reputation. You could have reached out to me privately about your concerns, as I’ve done to you in the past, and then gone on list and blasted me if I you felt I acted wrong. You could have phrased the question on list  “Ed, why did you act this way on Council. Please explain”. That’s how we are taught to do things at the places I’ve gone to school, places liked the University of Southern California, Harvard University and Cambridge. It shows respect for the other person. It’s also how my Mom and Dad raised me. I guess you don’t do things that way at the Institute of Technology in Georgia.

 

My reputation is important to me so I’ve just spent nine hours drafting this detailed 3800 word response so our Members understand that any negative inference that can be implied from your question towards my action on Council is not deserved. Those are nine hours that I had planned to do other things in my very real life that does not involve ICANN. I’m not sure I now can complete other work I need to do before going to Los Angeles, as I had hoped to do next weekend at my own expense if medically cleared, to fight for the interests we all believe in.

 

Congratulations Dr. Mueller: you may have just caused our representation in L.A. to be decreased by one. Me. It’s a shame you couldn’t have approached this matter and asked your question in a more professional, responsible less accusatory manner.

 

Respectfully,

 

Edward Morris