RE: [council] RE: ICANN Travel Support for 1 additional GNSO attendee to LA Meeting of CCWG - 25 & 26 September

["Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Carlos,

 

Thank you for your understanding, I appreciate that it seems a little crude, 
but I have no mandate to exercise discretion based on individual motivations so 
have to look to as objective criteria as possible. 

To that extent, I am open to any other suggestions on objective criteria.

 

If two candidates for the funding are very close in the objective test, there 
is an argument to apply some discretion, but it seems to me that the judgement 
has to be primarily on some form of objective measure.

 

Jonathan 

 

From: Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez [mailto:crg@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 17 September 2015 00:08
To: jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] RE: ICANN Travel Support for 1 additional GNSO attendee 
to LA Meeting of CCWG - 25 & 26 September

 

Dear Jonathan,

 

fair enough.

 

My motivation was not based on accumulated hours spent in calls, but in the 
possibility of a broader discussion with the Board and the drafting changes 
suggested by ira Magaziner.

 

I accept the clear and transparent rules proposed fully.

I  wait for the results of the LA meeting to continue contributing.

I rest my case

 

Many thanks

 

 

.

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
_____________________

email: crg@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:crg@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
Skype: carlos.raulg
+506 8837 7173 (cel)
+506 4000 2000 (home)
+506 2290 3678 (fax)
_____________________
Apartado 1571-1000

San Jose, COSTA RICA

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Sep 16, 2015, at 10:29 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx 
<mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:

 

All,

 

An update. I understand that there is more than one expression of interest from 
GNSO participants in the CCWG.

 

It strikes me that we cannot evaluate these on subjective criteria e.g. a 
motivation statement from the candidate.

 

One (and perhaps the only) objective criterion that we could apply is 
participation in the CCWG to date. Logs of participation are recorded and so we 
have the data.

I propose to the Council that we do this and use the data to make an objective 
selection.

 

 
<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Attendance+Log+CCWG-Accountability>
 
https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Attendance+Log+CCWG-Accountability

 

Since the GNSO participant will necessarily be from only one SG or 
Constituency, it seems reasonable to me that we impress on the selected 
participant / attendee that they take a broad GNSO perspective during the 
course of their participation in LA.

Further, that they remain receptive to input from other GNSO participants, as 
far as possible.

 

Thanks,

 

Jonathan

 

From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 16 September 2015 13:49
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Subject: ICANN Travel Support for 1 additional GNSO attendee to LA Meeting of 
CCWG - 25 & 26 September

 

All,

 

ICANN has offered to support one traveller per chartering organisation in 
addition to the currently sponsored travel slots (primarily for members of the 
CCWG).

 

We do not have a simple process or mechanism to deal with this, especially in 
such a tight time frame.

 

Currently, Carlos (a GNSO Council member and participant in the CCWG) has 
volunteered to attend and take up this option. 

Accordingly, please be aware of this offer and communicate any objections or 
concerns you may have.

 

Also, if you are aware of an active CCWG participant from within your SG who 
could make effective (for the benefit of the GNSO) use of such funding, please 
check their availability and make the name known.

 

If more than one candidate emerges, we may need to undertake some form of vote.

 

Thanks

 

 

Jonathan