[CCWG-ACCT] LA F2F support

Arun Sukumar arun.sukumar at nludelhi.ac.in
Tue Sep 15 07:45:32 UTC 2015


>
> Hi Seun
>
> I think the main puzzle is how exactly will ICANN/Co-Chairs apportion
> funding to participants. What determines those who "constructively"
> contributes? Is it by leading the working parties, by number of mails
> written? Or by number of meetings attended? Or as you put it those who make
> public comments?
>

Those are pertinent and legitimate questions. If I may turn them around,
what criteria in addition to these will SO/AC leadership use to verify
evaluate travel support applications?


> If participants will be funded (which I am actually in support of), then
> perhaps doubling the travel slots for each SO/AC and letting them determine
> which of their participants attend is the better option at ensuring balance.
>

Also a constructive suggestion. I would only add that additional travel
slots should not be created specifically to populate CCWG ranks so late in
the day - this is an open group and applications should be evaluated on the
basis of need and participation from existing participants.


Arun


>
> Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> On 15 Sep 2015 08:20, "Arun Sukumar" <arun.sukumar at nludelhi.ac.in> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>> --
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>


-- 
-
@arunmsukumar <http://www.twitter.com/arunmsukumar>
Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance <http://www.ccgdelhi.org>
National Law University, New Delhi
Ph: +91-9871943272
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150915/d5833ac6/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list