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.

On Sep 20, 2015, at 8:26 AM, Mueller, Milton L <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
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.

On Sep 20, 2015, at 2:51 AM, Edward Morris <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

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 2nd 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.

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