[CCWG-ACCT] LA F2F support

Pranesh Prakash pranesh at cis-india.org
Tue Sep 15 11:16:32 UTC 2015


Dear Seun and others,
The one problem is see is that SOs and ACs would ordinarily look for 
representativeness.

I see multiple submissions both to the ICG proposal and the CCWG 
proposal from people whose opinions are very divergent from the SOs or 
ACs they are part of or would be part of if they were part of an AC/SO.

Hence, what is as necessary is that SOs and ACs look for *diversity* of 
opinions and not just for agreement with the stated position of that SO/AC.

Regards,
Pranesh

Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> [2015-09-15 08:32:28 +0100]:
> Hi Arun,
>
> 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?
>
> 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.
>
> In your case Arun, I expect you to indicate your interest within NCUC. I
> think this will be the closest transparent approach possible.
>
> Regards
>
> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283
sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150915/65703d13/signature.asc>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list