Certainly, there is need to be prudent and justify the figures spent. What is important (and why I urge for care) is that disqualifying any CCWG member travel based on such criteria as performance should be done in sync with the appointing SO/AC. Usually I will expect such SO/AC to consider a replacement of such person and not deny the affected CO a participation slot. There are CCWG members who just joined not long ago, there are some who only participate on targeted issues, there are various level of motivations/expertise which would all imply varying level of contributions by members. There is a reason why the CCWG composition is the way it is and one of such reason is to ensure balance, representation and diversity. That said, I also hope that we will observe significant care and prudence on legal side of things as well. I believe that should receive more of our focus and attention going forward. ;-) Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 3 Aug 2016 9:02 p.m., "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

At 03/08/2016 04:14 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:

On 2 Aug 2016 5:57 p.m., "Karen Mulberry" <karen.mulberry@icann.org > wrote:

...

NOTE: In evaluating the applications for travel funding the Co-Chairs

will consider applicant's attendance to CCWG meetings and their contributions to the ongoing work.

...

SO: I encourage Co-Chairs to be very careful with this one. A member what it is and evaluation should be based on that; it should remain within the scope of respective appointing SO/AC to determine if such a member is performing or not.

Careful, certainly, but this must be a criteria for exceptional travel funding by the CCWG.

We are in a new world where the CCWG will be allocated a finite (and modest) amount of travel funding. If that budget is exceeded or to justify next year's funding if we are still running, we will have to demonstrate that we are using the funds effectively. As the Chair one of the chartering organizations I expect no less.

Alan