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

["Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Amr,

Thanks for this constructive input and assistance.

You'll see from my note to Carlos that I arrived at a similar place.

Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 16 September 2015 18:42
To: jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] ICANN Travel Support for 1 additional GNSO attendee to 
LA Meeting of CCWG - 25 & 26 September

Hi,

> On Sep 16, 2015, at 6:29 PM, Jonathan Robinson <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

Thanks for the suggestion, Jonathan. Sounds good to me. How about a stepwise 
approach; considering the objective criteria first, followed by personal 
statements in the event that more than one applicant have similar 
attendance/participation records? Personally, I believe the note from Greg (via 
Brian) was helpful.

> Since the GNSO participant will necessarily be from only one SG or 
> Constituency, it seems 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.

This may be a bit tricky, but I won’t object. It just seems to me that if we 
are going to evaluate applications based on the merits of the applicants' 
participation, asking the funded participant to alter the nature of his/her 
interaction sort of defeats the purpose of attendance.

It also strikes me that there is quite a bit that GNSO members/participants 
generally agree on. Areas where positions differ seem less than those where 
there is agreement. In any case, I would hope that all members/participants are 
receptive to input from colleagues regardless of their travel funding status.

Thanks.

Amr=