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
All, Phil Buckingham and James Gannon have also indicated their interest. Best, Thomas
Am 16.09.2015 um 14:48 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info>:
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
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 tability 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 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
Hi, I do support this approach. And I do think there are objective criteria. I think that first we should confirm whether any of the heavy contributors like WP leads, rapporteurs & authors from the GNSO have a way to be there. It not we can judge based on degree of participation, like meetings online attended and written contributions as you suggest. avri On 16-Sep-15 12:29, Jonathan Robinson 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...
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 *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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
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
Amr, Thanks for this constructive input and assistance. You'll see from my note to Carlos that I arrived at a similar place. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org] Sent: 16 September 2015 18:42 To: jrobinson@afilias.info Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] ICANN Travel Support for 1 additional GNSO attendee to LA Meeting of CCWG - 25 & 26 September 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=
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 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> 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... <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Attendance+Log+CCWG-Accountability>
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 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
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
All, Following our various discussions on this topic, I propose to put forward the name of Greg Shatan to ICANN as the additional GNSO sponsored traveller to the meeting. Unless there is a substantial objection to this in the next 24 hours, Greg's name will be passed onto ICANN. I am sorry that we have had to only select one candidate by this crude method and at short notice but that is the way it has worked out. Thank-you, especially to those who were prepared to travel, and also to those who provided input. Jonathan From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: 16 September 2015 13:49 To: 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
participants (5)
-
Amr Elsadr -
Avri Doria -
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez -
Jonathan Robinson -
Thomas Rickert