Hi, I couldn't sneak in this question in time before the last call ended, but: Why are additional travel support requests for LA being routed through SO/AC leadership? Chartering organisations have had an opportunity to nominate fully funded members. If travel support requests are not many in number, surely they can be evaluated in a transparent manner by CCWG co-chairs, with results circulated in the working group mailing list? I'm not entirely sure if handing it over to So/AC leadership -- who may or may not have tracked accountability discussions down to this crucial meeting -- is the most appropriate way to get diversity in perspectives. It is potentially unfair to those who are not affiliated to them, but active participants nevertheless. The number of comments in the second period received from organisations that are not affiliated to So/ACs is indicative of active participation outside. disclosure: i am interested in receiving additional travel support, and affiliated to NCUC Best, Arun --