Hi,
On Sep 16, 2015, at 6:29 PM, Jonathan Robinson <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-Accoun...
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