<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] ICANN Travel Support for 1 additional GNSO attendee to LA Meeting of CCWG - 25 & 26 September
- To: jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [council] ICANN Travel Support for 1 additional GNSO attendee to LA Meeting of CCWG - 25 & 26 September
- From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:42:09 +0200
- Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <007201d0f09c$d1437d90$73ca78b0$@afilias.info>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <028501d0f07e$0352fbe0$09f8f3a0$@afilias.info> <007201d0f09c$d1437d90$73ca78b0$@afilias.info>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|