[CCWG-ACCT] LA F2F support

[Arun Sukumar]

Hi, I couldn't sneak in this question in time before the last call ended,
but:

Why are additional travel support requests for LA being routed through
SO/AC leadership? Chartering organisations have had an opportunity to
nominate fully funded members. If travel support requests are not many in
number, surely they can be evaluated in a transparent manner by CCWG
co-chairs, with results circulated in the working group mailing list?

I'm not entirely sure if handing it over to So/AC leadership -- who may or
may not have tracked accountability discussions down to this crucial
meeting -- is the most appropriate way to get diversity in perspectives. It
is potentially unfair to those who are not affiliated to them, but active
participants nevertheless.

The number of comments in the second period received from organisations
that are not affiliated to So/ACs is indicative of active participation
outside.

disclosure: i am interested in receiving additional travel support, and
affiliated to NCUC

Best,
Arun

--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150915/52561df1/attachment.html>