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?
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.