Sounds like there should have been some 'inbox' consultation before getting the matter here. However, I think Milton has raised his concerns and Ed has given a detailed response. Maybe in future, there needs to be a clear criteria on how some 'quick' selection can be done as this seems to be the problem. Great work is being done on voluntary basis and we should safeguard against some miscommunication/misunderstanding.  

Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 06:26:43 +0000
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: A Response To Milton
To: [log in to unmask]









Ed:
I understand and support your extensive work on behalf of NCUC and NCSG. I know that we usually agree on both tactics and strategy. So I did not send the message
 I sent casually. 
 
You’ve been a fantastic contributor to the Noncommercials. But I also know you can let personal animosities get in the way of your judgment, and I still think
 this is one of those cases. I have to say I find your explanation inadequate, though parts of it are reasonable.

 
What gets lost in your lengthy explanation are some very simple, fundamental things. James and Carlos were willing and able to go, and no one else from NCSG that
 you contacted (Farzaneh, Matt) was. If we want NCSG to be represented at this critical CCWG meeting, James or Carlos should have been the next choices to push for. Either of those two would have been acceptable to me, but clearly James (as someone we sent
 to Paris and who wrote extensive comments on the CCWG proposal) is an obvious choice.

 
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?

 
What NCSG representatives need to be asking themselves is not “who attended the most meetings?” but “who represents us best?” “Who is going to be most responsive
 to our concerns?” “Who has sufficient knowledge of the issues and sufficient familiarity with the people and processes to be effective and do a good job – for _us_.” As for attendance percentages, Greg Shatan is a paid lobbyist for the trademark interests.
 This is his job. James is a volunteer. It’s not surprising that Greg can attend more of the endless phone calls run by the CCWG.  Still, someone who attends nearly 40% of the numerous meetings and was in Buenos Aires and Paris and has written extensive comments
 about the CCWG proposal is well above the bar for consideration.
 
Ed, I think you did a pretty good job of explaining why you supported Greg. If indeed he is someone who will resist the board’s attempt to eliminate accountability
 measures, it is good that he can go. What you seem to overlook, however, is that Greg would end up in LA regardless of whether the GNSO funds him or not. And Greg would probably get GNSO funding regardless of whether you supported him over our own people.
 So the rationale for your actions escape me.
 
I think the idea that James is a shill for commercial interests because he filed comments in the name of his own one-man consultancy is rubbish. Stop the personal
 attacks. ICANN accountability does not, in any way that I can understand, intersect with the business interest of his internet security practice, except in a negative sense (James would likely ensure that he will never get a contract from ICANN).

 
So I’m sorry you feel offended by my challenge, but I think it needed to be made, and I think it’s healthy and all too rare for this community to be calling their
 representatives to account. 
 
If you want to go to LA yourself, ask the EC. I’d support it. I don’t think you should go on your own nickel, based on what you’ve been telling us about your
 problems. On the other hand, if you choose not to go to Los Angeles, don’t blame it on me: it’s your decision. I am not responsible if you choose to sulk.

 
By the way, if you are dissatisfied with the so-called “ICG proposal” (which is really just a compilation of the names, numbers and protocols proposals), don’t
 drag that into this controversy. It muddies the waters. Make your point in the NCSG comments, on the list, etc. I would be happy to have more discussion and input about what is happening in ICG.

 
--MM