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@isoc-cr.org] Sent: 17 September 2015 00:08 To: jrobinson@afilias.info Cc: council@gnso.icann.org 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@isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org> 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@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> > 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-Accoun... 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@afilias.info] Sent: 16 September 2015 13:49 To: council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> 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