Forwarded From: "Edward Morris" < Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 5:56 PM To:Jonathan Robinson, council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: re: [council] RE: ICANN Travel Support for 1 additional GNSO attendee to LA Meeting of CCWG - 25 & 26 September Hi Jonathan, I think this is a good approach. There are probably a few other criteria to consider aa well - posts, leadership positions and the like - and based on all of them I reached out to Greg Shatan and was happy to learn he would be willing to go. His 83% attendance record is close to the top and only begins to measure how active and valuable Greg has been in and to the CCWG. On the legal sub team, for example, where we both served Greg put in many hours, as all of us did, early in the process, sometimes attending 3-4 calls per day. Given the issues expected to be on the table in L.A. I think Greg's legal expertise would also be valuable. We have lots of excellent names on the table - I like and admire James, Carlos and Phil - but in terms of who most deserves to be there based upon past participation and who has the best skill set for this particular Meeting I think it would be hard to beat Greg. Of course, I'd welcome additional names to consider - it's been a long process and I might have forgotten someone. Best, Ed ________________________________ From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 5:31 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] RE: ICANN Travel Support for 1 additional GNSO attendee to LA Meeting of CCWG - 25 & 26 September 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... 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